Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHAPEL STREET CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH (SOUTHPORT) BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords]

CHICHESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MERSEY RIVER BOARD BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BARRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

SAINT PAUL, PORTMAN SQUARE, SAINT MARYLEBONE BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Waiting Lists, North-West

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many people are on council housing waiting lists in county boroughs, boroughs, and urban districts, respectively, in the north-west of England.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I do not have this information, and it would serve no useful purpose to collect and aggregate the totals of the individual lists, since these are compiled by the local authorities on bases which differ with particular local circumstances and requirements.

Mr. Spriggs: Is it not most astounding that after all the time that has elapsed since the publication of this Question or the Order Paper the Minister has found fit to tell the House that he has not got this information? Is not this a shocking indictment of the Minister and of the failure of his duty to the House of Commons? There are hundreds of thousands of people living in diremisery—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—I am asking the Minister for these figures. I am appealing to the Minister to get this information now and I ask him to provide some incentives to local authorities to build more houses and to make money available through Government services at cheap interest rates so that houses can be built for the people instead of propaganda.

Sir K. Joseph: The need is acknowledged; the pace of housing building is accelerating, but I am asked to find waiting list details for 150 housing authorities none of which is comparable on the bases they use, and I think that it would be a waste of time of my Department and of the local authorities concerned.

Colne Valley

Mr. Duffy: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he has not collected statistics of the numbers of back-to-back and back-to-earth houses, houses sharing outdoor lavatories and twilight houses in the Colne Valley Constituency; and, in view of the desirability of obtaining such information in order to assess the housing needs of the area, if he will take steps to discover these figures.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): Local authorities have a statutory duty to assess the housing needs of their district and it


is their responsibility to collect the information they require for this purpose.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the inherited nineteenth century industrialism weighs very heavily on areas like the Colne Valley constituency and that in referring to such areas I have in mind all the old industrial districts of Britain where there is a real need? Is he aware that the need does not always correspond to the expressed demand? Will not he agree that the Department must conduct factual investigations of this kind in order to establish real need?

Mr. Corfield: With respect to the hon. Member, I do not agree with him. The important thing, surely, is to have the assessment of the total number of houses requiring to be replaced because they are unfit. The reason why particular houses are unfit is, in my submission, of very much less importance.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many houses he estimates are now occupied by Commonwealth immigrants; what percentage is slum property; how many have been rehoused in new council houses; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: I regret that I do not have the information.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask two questions? In view of the fact that in recent weeks there have been three disastrous fires in overcrowded tenement dwellings where Commonwealth immigrants have lost their lives, will my right hon. Friend look at the possibility of having outside fire escapes provided in such tenements? Secondly, in view of the enormous problems which are being created, would he not consider it advisable to prohibit all such immigration to this country for the next five years until these problems are settled?

Sir K. Joseph: These problems of overcrowding are a by-product of a housing shortage which we are overtaking as quickly as we can. As for the fire risks, both the 1961 Housing Act and the present Housing Bill which is being discussed give power, which I hope will be used, to local authorities

to require fire escapes to be provided in multi-occupied property.

Sir C. Osborne: It is not so much a question of giving local authorities power to provide these things. Will my right hon. Friend see that local authorities have to provide them in view of the risk which arises from fire in these very overcrowded tenement dwellings?

Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence that local authorities with a lot of multi-occupied property are not using, or trying to use, their powers as much as they can. If my hon. Friend, or any hon. Member, has evidence that a local authority is not using its powers, I shall be glad to receive information about it.

Notice to Quit

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will take steps to extend the statutory period of a notice to quit to tenants from one month to three months.

Sir. K. Joseph: No, Sir. I have no doubt that the Committee under Sir Milner Holland will be considering the effect in London of the present arrangements. It would be wise to await the Report before deciding whether any changes should be made.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister realise that four weeks is much too short a time for tenants to contact local authorities, estate agents, advice bureaux and other possible sources of help, particularly when they have to do so outside their working hours? Since the Milner Holland Committee is concerned only with London and this is a national problem, will the right hon. Gentleman look at it again and consider at least giving local authorities power to suspend notices to quit for a few weeks in cases where they themselves are trying to help dispossessed tenants?

Sir K. Joseph: If the tenant does not go at the end of four weeks' notice, normally the landlord seeks a court order. That provides a further period of grace. I have to balance the advantage to the tenant of which the hon. Lady has spoken with the possible danger that landlords, burdened with further restrictions, may be unwilling to let and might sell. That would be a net disadvantage to tenants and potential tenants.


We have to bear that in mind. The Milner Holland Report, although limited to London, will perhaps have lessons for the whole country.

Mr. M. Stewart: Where the landlord does not seek a court order but seeks—as he can—to get the tenant out, the period of grace does not apply. Is not this an argument for supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) to forbid evictions except by court order?

Sir K. Joseph: I have advised hon. Members that this is part of a very big question and that we should await the Milner Holland Committee's Report.

Council Houses (Interest Charges)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why information about average weekly interest charges on council dwellings in Great Britain and in Salford for 1951 and 1963 is not available to him, in view of the fact that he possesses the corresponding information for Slough.

Sir K. Joseph: My only regular source of information is the epitomes of accounts submitted by local authorities. These show the total interest charges borne on housing, account, but not the cost of new borrowing in any year.
This can be got only by asking the local authority, which—perhaps mistakenly—I did in the case of Slough. The time spent in obtaining similar material from other individual authorities—and as requested by the hon. Member, for all houses in Great Britain—would in my view be quite disproportionate to the result which would merely confirm what is already known, namely that interest rates now are higher than they were in 1951. But then so are the housing subsidies paid to the authorities to assist them to meet this higher interest rate.

Mr. Allaun: If the Minister could go to this trouble in the case of Slough, why can he not do it in the case of Salford? I hate to suggest this, but surely he was not trying to avoid disclosing damaging information showing, as in the case of Slough, that the interest charged for an average three-bedroomed

house has gone up from £1 a week to £2 10s. a week in this period? If I have understood the right hon. Gentleman, I think he is above that kind of thing.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman appears to be a bit of a pace setter. A large number of his hon. Friends have been putting down Questions of his sort. I suggest that if they are interested in detailed information which is not available to me, they should ask their own local authorities for it. I will publish all the information I have of the sort that is available in published accounts.

Mr. Brockway: If I table for other boroughs questions similiar to that which I tabled for Slough, and to which I got an answer, will the right hon. Gentleman provide the answer for those other boroughs as well?

Sir K. Joseph: I am anxious to extend to all hon. Gentlemen the courtesy that I show to any, but the point is that what I did in one case would be a waste of administrative resources—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—if I did it for all local authorities.

Mr. M. Stewart: Surely there is no great trouble caused to the Minister in asking for this information? If any trouble is caused, it must be to the local authority in answering. Has the Minister received any complaint from Slough about its being put to unnecessary trouble? If there are to be complaints that this is too much bother, surely the local authorities rather than the Minister would be entitled to make them?

Sir K. Joseph: It is my job to defend the officials both of the Ministry and of Local Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What I am asked for by a number of hon. Members is detailed figures for each year from 1951 for each authority. 'This would involve a very great deal of administrative work.

Builders (Planning Authority Instructions)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation to protect house owners from the failure of builders to carry out adequately the instructions and decisions of planning authorities.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.

Mr. Milne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware from information that we have given him in regard to a local case that there is not only local concern but national concern about this matter? Does he not consider that it is entirely wrong that where a builder fails to carry out the decisions of the planning authority, the occupiers of the houses should have to meet the cost involved?

Sir K. Joseph: There are two points here. First, the planning authority can lay down as a condition of planning permission any requirements that it wishes, and it can enforce those requirements. Secondly, the purchaser must satisfy himself that what the builder purports to sell to him he is, in fact, buying.

Mr. J. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many purchasers of houses are far from satisfied that their builders are carrying out the instructions of the local authorities? Will he look at this matter seriously again with a view to protecting young persons when buying their first house?

Sir K. Joseph: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is on the same point. The Question was about the decision of planning authorities. If it was a question of byelaws or standards, that is a different matter. The House will be aware that the housebuilders themselves, with co-operation from my Department, are looking into the whole question of raising standards of housebuilding.

Interest Charges (Blyth, Seaton Valley and Bedlingtonshire)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the annual cost of interest charge repayments on housing loans in 1951 and 1963 in Blyth, Seaton Valley and Bedlingtonshire.

Sir K. Joseph: As the Answer involves a table of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Milne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for undertaking to provide these figures, and after examining them, we shall be able to make comments. However, may I ask whether he is also

aware that the financial part of housing is the one most crippling to local authorities and that their ability to go ahead with housing plans is restricted by the nature of the interest charges that they have to pay? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into the matter much more closely than appears to have been the case in recent years?

Sir K. Joseph: A review of housing subsidies so that local authorities can plan ahead with confidence is going on at this moment.

The figures* are as follows:



Interest of Charges on Housing Account



1951–52 £
1962–63 £


Blyth B.C
68,822
175,003


Seaton Valley U.D.C.
64,232
160,211


Bedlingtonshire U.D.C
56,453
199,199


* Sources: Epitomes of Accounts.

Loan Charges, East Ham

Mr. Oram: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the average loan charges for a three-bedroom dwelling in East Ham were £1 9s. 0d. per week in 1951 and £4 0s. 0d. per week in 1963; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve local authorities and their tenants of such interest burdens.

Sir K. Joseph: Without knowing the basis on which the figures were calculated, I cannot comment on them. The Government have said that, on the assumption that proper rents are charged, subject to rebates for those who need them, they will see that local authorities receive whatever subsidies they need to carry through their housing responsibilities. The current review of housing subsidies will take account of the financial outturn for the whole housing stock provided over the years, of which loan charges on new houses is but one element; the financial needs of local authorities in the light of an accelerating programme; and the capacity of tenants to pay rent.

Mr. Oram: Is the Minister aware that East Ham is a progressive housing authority which does what it can to protect its tenants? Yet, as a result of the increased interest charges, it has been necessary for East Ham to double its rents in a


decade. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's party's borrowing of many Labour Party ideas on social matters in this General Election year, will not the Conservative Party borrow just one more and go in for special interest rates for housing?

Sir K. Joseph: I am also aware that the average net rent for three-bedroomed post-war houses in East Ham is now 35s. 2d., that East Ham operates a very small rent rebate scheme indeed, and that East Ham receives nearly £200,000 subsidy from the taxpayers and £50,000 from the ratepayers, and with all this East Ham should certainly be able to keep the rent reasonable if it has a proper rent rebate scheme.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is it not remarkable how much detailed information the Minister can get from a local authority when it suits him to do so?

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman had asked me for the same information for every housing authority in Great Britain, I should have resisted him on the same grounds as I resisted his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).

Compulsory Purchase Order, Lambeth

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs in view of the details which have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Brixton, regarding the owner of 30, Groveway, London, S.W.9, who has publicly stated that he is exploiting racial tension to dispossess controlled tenants, what discussions he has had with the Lambeth Borough Council regarding a compulsory purchase order for this property.

Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir. I understand that the Council is to be recommended at its next meeting to make a compulsory purchase order on the property, and in these circumstances it would not be proper for me to discuss the matter with the Council.

Mr. Lipton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is quite wicked that a white landlord should seek the liberty to foment racial ill-will for the purpose

of dispossessing white controlled tenants by introducing coloured tenants into his property? [HON. MEMBERS: "Race distinction."] I am responsible for the accuracy of the statement I am making. In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will not take his usual eight months to make up his mind about whether he should confirm the compulsory purchase order in this case?

Sir K. Joseph: We have pledged ourselves to keep rent control until the end of this Parliament and have further pledged ourselves that in the next Parliament we shall not extend block decontrol but shall continue the policy of creeping decontrol. Nevertheless, there are certainly large numbers of good landlords who are penalised in the public interest by this policy—

Mr. Lipton: What about this one?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not for a moment defending those landlords who seek to foment, by racial or any other trouble, unhappiness among existing controlled tenants, but the letting of a flat to a person of a non-English race is not in itself any evidence of such a policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Residential Caravan Sites

Mr. Stainton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will amend the model standards affecting permanent residential caravan sites issued in accordance with Section 5(6) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, to include a prescribed form of rent book which will also record the tenancy conditions between the site operator and the caravan dweller, stipulate a minimum period of notice of one month for a caravan to quit a licensed site, and make provision for six- monthly inspections of such sites by the local medical officer of health and fire prevention officer or their staffs.

Mr. Corfield: I do not think matters of this kind can appropriately be included in the model standards.

Mr. Stainton: Is not the Minister aware that these permanent caravan sites scattered over the countryside account for many thousands of families and that there is a general feeling that it is not good enough to discard this question on this kind of basis? There is no special mechanism other than private prosecutions for enforcing licences and, even so, the licences are often not sufficient in many major regards.

Mr. Corfield: As far as licences go, the local authority, of course, has not only power to lay down the conditions but to enforce them. However, I am not going to pretend to my hon. Friend that I think that the regulations are entirely perfect. If he would like to talk to me about any particular case, I shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of complaint from caravan dwellers about the unsatisfactory behaviour of licence holders and that this part of the legislation needs looking at? Will he and the Minister also do something to encourage local authorities to develop sites of their own in cases where caravan dwellers do not get a fair deal from a private site owner?

Mr. Corfield: I agree that in many cases the answer lies in sufficient sites, and, if necessary, sites provided by local authorities. We put no obstacle in the way of the latter; in fact, we encourage it.

Abandoned Cars

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware of the increasing number of car owners who dump their unwanted worn-out cars on waste ground in cities, so creating an eyesore and a danger to children, and that these have to be removed at public expense; and if he will now introduce legislation to make it an obligation on all car owners to dispose of their unwanted vehicles through a municipal depôt established for this purpose.

Mr. Corfield: I am aware that many cars are so dumped. I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion is practicable but local authorities can cer-

tainly help with this problem and my right hon. Friend hopes to offer them some advice on it in the near future.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in almost every town I visit I see these ugly, unsightly and offensive heaps of scrap caused by people who have discarded their cars? Is he aware that I am not blaming the car owners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because they have no place to put their cars. Is he aware that if the local authorities would establish depôts, even though a charge were made to car owners, this, in my opinion, would be a great saving to the ratepayers? Will he ask local authorities to adopt the principle of establishing local depôts?

Mr. Corfield: As I said, I have no doubt that the local authorities have a part to play. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the House to await a circular which will be based on detailed discussions with the local authority associations and the scrap metal merchants' association to find the best answer to this problem.

Mr. Bence: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that during the past six months I have seen a Volkswagon standing in a side street with a notice on the windscreen, "Licence applied for"? Is he aware that the notice has now gone and that the vehicle is causing a nuisance and obstructing the traffic? Will he do something about this problem?

Mr. Fernyhough: When the hon. Gentleman sends out a circular, will he also ask local authorities whether they can do anything to help with the collection of old mattresses, bicycles and prams which, if they are dumped, cause quite a considerable nuisance in many parts of the country?

Mr. Corfield: That is a different question. It is a matter which is very much under consideration, but I cannot guarantee that it will be dealt with in the same circular.

Planning Appeal, Ealing

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he allowed the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Southern Electricity Board's appeal to pull down their existinig building in Pope's Lane, Ealing, and


six houses in order to construct a new storage depôt; and if he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Corfield: As explained in the decision letter of 24th January, a copy of which was sent to my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend allowed this application in the interests of maintaining an essential public service. My right hon. Friend's decision, which accorded with the views of the local planning authority and of the inspector who took the inquiry, is final and he has no power to reconsider it.

Mr. Smith: Does not my hon. Friend think that psychologically it is not a good thing to pull down six perfectly good houses to make way for a storage depôt and car park, particularly when there is a housing shortage? Is he aware that this is a good residential area and that my constituents who live on the other side of the road will suffer a considerable loss of amenity value as a result of this decision?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that we should never come to a decision of this sort, which involves the demolition of houses, in present circumstances unless we had checked and counter-checked the availability and suitability of other sites for this essential service.

Licensed Club, Chiswick

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he allowed the establishment of a licensed club at the Strand Shipyard, Grove Park Road, Chiswick, despite the objections of the local authority and the majority of local residents; and if he will reconsider the matter.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend's reasons were given in the decision letter, a copy of which has been sent to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend accepted his inspector's conclusion that this was an appropriate use in these premises but he has limited the permission to three years, so that the practical effect on the surroundings can be assessed. Having given his decision, my right hon. Friend has no power to reopen the case.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of the people who use this drinking club are not residents of the area? In view of the valid objections raised by the local council and about 200 local residents, does not he think that their views ought to have been given greater consideration than was the case? Is he aware that there is a tremendous parking problem here and that this, above everything else, ought to be taken into consideration?

Mr. Corfield: As my hon. Friend will be aware—I am sure that he has read the inspector's report—the inspector who saw the site and heard the evidence came to the conclusion that parking problems generally were likely to have a very slight effect on the amenities. He had also to take into account the views of the very many people who were in support of this scheme.

Mr. Smith: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sewage Disposal

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the greatly increased population in the south and south-east of the United Kingdom, he will reconsider the traditional practice of discharging sewage effluent into the sea.

Mr. Corfield: The discharge of untreated sewage to the sea is normally a satisfactory method of disposal if the sewers are properly designed and the outfall can be suitably sited. There is no reason why this method should not meet the needs of increased population in many coastal areas. Where local conditions make some form of treatment desirable, my right hon. Friend always considers applications for loan sanction sympathetically.

Miss Quennell: I thank my hon. Friend for that very comprehensive Answer. Is he aware that under certain circumstances the result of this practice has been nauseating in the extreme in some of our shallow coastal waters? With the prospect of a large increase in the population in the South, does not he think that this is a matter which


ought to be reconsidered in the light of possible developments?

Mr. Corfield: With due respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that population has a direct bearing on the problem. I admit that local conditions vary, and where there are grounds for feeling that some treatment is necessary our technical officers are always available to give advice. We have a Committee of the D.S.I.R. studying the best possible design of outfalls and to assess the problem generally.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that no local authority should deposit untreated sewage in the sea anywhere, and does not he agree that very often it is not the authority concerned which feels the effect, but some authority further along the coast? Should not it be the job of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to see that every local authority treats its sewage in some way before disposing of it into rivers or into the sea?

Mr. Corfield: I do not agree that it is the job of the Ministry to force local authorities to spend money when there is no evidence that this is an unsatisfactory arrangement. I have explained that where there is evidence that it is unsatisfactory, help, both financial and technical, is available.

Mr. Temple: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a national problem? May I ask what action his Department has taken as a result of the recent report of the Committee on storm water overflow?

Mr. Corfield: As I have already explained to the House the matter is under consideration by the Water Pollution Research Board of D.S.I.R. and we have had an expert report relatively recently from the Medical Research Council.

Synthetic Detergents (Report)

Mr. Harper: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects to receive the seventh report of the Standing Technical Committee on synthetic detergents.

Mr. Corfield: By the end of July.

Mr. Harper: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this Committee has been sitting since 1st May, 1953, a matter of 11 years, and that it has not yet found a long-term or a short-term solution to the problem? Is he aware that in Castleford, a town in my constituency, where the river runs right through the middle of the town, the position is deteriorating rapidly, and that not only the inhabitants are complaining but the members of the National Farmers' Union have said that this is affecting the feed of cattle on the grasslands? In view of the fact that the volume of synthetic detergent has increased by over 300 per cent. during this period, will the Minister see that something is done similar to what has been done in West Germany, and introduce legislation to compel manufacturers to use a soft-based material in the perfecting of these detergents so as to eliminate this problem of foam in the rivers which is causing such wide concern, particularly in my constituency?

Mr. Corfield: I think that that supplementary question has gone a long way from the date of the report of the Committee. The hon. Member is wrong in saying that the Committee has been established since 1953, for it was established in 1957. A very considerable amount of progress has been made. The introduction of soft-based detergents has reduced the trouble by about 50 per cent. Further experiments are going on. There are signs that even softer bases can be produced. The response of the manufacturing industry has been such that something like 70 per cent. of the total supply is now on the soft-based detergents.

Land, Shildon

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how much land lying within the urban district of Shildon and excluded from the growth zone it is proposed to include in the current plan for extending Newton Aycliffe, which is within the growth zone.

Sir K. Joseph: Approximately 700 acres of the Urban District of Shildon all outside the growth zone is included in the


area on which I have invited the comments of the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Boyden: Will the Minister use his influence to ensure that a fair balance is kept between the legitimate aspirations of Newton Aycliffe and Shildon? Does he appreciate that if this acreage is taken it is possible that it will cripple the industrial and social development of Shildon? Will he see that this does not happen?

Sir K. Joseph: These questions are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade. My job is to consult the local authorities about the proposal to extend Newton Aycliffe.

Middridge

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing, and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why the village of Middridge, for which the urban district of Shildon had development plans, is now scheduled for inclusion in the expanded town of Newton Aycliffe.

Sir K. Joseph: Middridge is within the area on which I have invited the comments of the local authorities. It was included because any expansion of the new town would have to be in that direction and, if expansion goes ahead, it seemed right that the planning of the village should be considered in relation to the new town development.

Mr. Boyden: Why does the expansion of Newton Aycliffe have to go in that direction when there are plenty of other areas in which the town could expand without spoiling the development of Shildon? Has the Minister that in mind, because it is very important for the town of Shildon?

Sir K. Joseph: It is in order to consider these things that I am at present in consultation with the local authorities.

Water Resources, South-East

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what special studies his Department has undertaken

on the water resources available to meet the commitments envisaged in paragraph 14 of Command Paper No. 2308.

Mr. Corfield: One of the Department's senior engineering inspectors conducted a special water survey of the area covered by the South-East Study. Appendix I of the Study is based on his findings.

Miss Quennell: Surely the recommendations in the Study itself emphasise the need for advanced planning? Surely my hon. Friend is aware that there is considerable delay between planning and executing a major water undertaking? In the area the water resources are already under pressure. In view of the rising consumption per head, is it not vital that planning should be performed well in advance of the provision of water resources for the rising population of the district?

Mr. Corfield: Of course that is so, but nevertheless there was a great deal of information that the potential water supplies are available before the South-East Survey was undertaken, and it is clear from the conclusions which were reached that there are no insuperable obstacles to providing the necessary water in these circumstances.

Mr. Lubbock: In view of the estimate that capital works amounting to £68 million will be needed for water in South-East England, what estimate has the hon. Gentleman made of the reduction which might have been possible if a further 1 million people from other regions of Britain were not to be accepted there?

Mr. Corfield: I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that this expected immigration is not confined to other regions of Britain. The question he poses is a different question, but if he puts it on the Order Paper I shall do my best to answer it.

Land, South-East

Mr. Oram: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he now proposes to take to prevent excessive profits from land speculation consequent upon the publication of plans for development in the South-East Region.

Sir K. Joseph: No further steps are needed because in every case where planned expansion in an area specifically identified in the South-East Study does take place the land needed will be bought in advance as necessary by a public authority just as is done for new towns.

Mr. Oram: Do not these powers to which the Minister referred extend only to new towns and expanded towns? Is it not the case that two-thirds of the development envisaged in the South-East Plan will be outside such new towns and expanded towns? Therefore, is it not necessary to have some idea how to stop speculation in the two-thirds which are not covered at present?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but there is a great difference. The one-third is proposed by the South-East Study to be housed in places which are identified and where, therefore, speculation could occur. The remaining two-thirds are left to the local planning authorities with discretion, subject to the Minister's overall final word, to place them in any part of their county which makes sense. Therefore, the speculator, if there be large numbers of such people, and I doubt it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I doubt it—are not led by the South-East Study to any identifiable place.

Mr. MacColl: Does not the Minister appreciate that that is the whole mischief? The whole thing becomes a gamble on which way the planning authority will jump. This is one of the major causes of speculation and uncertainty. There will be an attempt to anticipate or even to persuade the planning authority to move in the direction where their interests lie.

Sir K. Joseph: Our main job is to get on with the development of land for houses. We believe this is going on at an accelerating rate under the present procedure. We depart from that only when the Government by their own initiative designate a planned expansion. That is where we use the new town procedure.

Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is going on now, that towns like Slough in the south-east of England are becoming the

slaves of great new feudalists, the property combines, and that these are sending up the price of land, which will make impossible his own housing associations or any other housing development designed to provide houses at rents which are within the ability of occupiers to pay?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is, I know, a keen supporter of the Green Belt. The problem of towns like Slough, which are encircled by it, is one that involves the housing of some of the population who need houses outside the Green Belt in planned expansions. The question that I was asked was about the South-East Study.

Planning Application, Ealing

Mr. Reynolds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will call in the planning application made on behalf of Allied Ironfounders Ltd. to the Ealing Borough Council on 2nd April, 1964.

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that this application relates to industrial development in an area zoned for industry. On the information before me, I can see no reason why it should not be dealt with by the local authority in the usual way.

Mr. Reynolds: Is not the Minister aware that the company concerned paid £150 to the North Ealing Conservative Party in the last week in February and five weeks later, on 2nd April, submitted a planning application to the Conservative-controlled Ealing Borough Council—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would appear to involve an imputation. All imputation in Questions is out of order.

Public Lavatories (Turnstiles)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will circulate in the Official Report the names of the local authorities which have still not removed the turnstiles from their public lavatories.

Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him


whether it is not a fact that included in the list are a number of seaside resorts such as Blackpool, Morecambe, Cleveleys and Southport? Therefore, what does he intend to do to ensure that the turnstiles will be removed before the holiday period and, thus, that women visiting those towns will be saved from the acute embarrassment, not to say danger, which is involved in negotiating these infernal machines?

Mr. Corfield: None of the places the hon. Lady has mentioned is included in the list. However, I can tell her that since I last answered a Question on this subject three further local authorities have removed all their turnstiles and five others expect to do so in a matter of weeks. One of these has only one turnstile, and it is in a lavatory which is closed.

Following is the answer:
My latest information is that, the following authorities have not yet removed all their turnstiles.

Brighton County Borough Council.
Henley-on-Thames Borough Council.
Richmond (Yorks) Borough Council.
St. Ives (Cornwall) Borough Council.
Abergele Urban District Council.
Bala Urban District Council.
Bude-Stratton Urban District Council.
Herne Bay Urban District Council.
Holywell Urban District Council.
Skipton Urban District Council.
Thirsk Rural District Council.

In Brighton, the one remaining turnstile is in a public lavatory not yet opened for the season.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Visiting Sporting Teams (Hospitality)

Mr. Box: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what portion of the £40,000 of Government money allocated to the Welsh tourist industry has been earmarked by him for expenditure on hospitality to visiting sporting teams from overseas countries.

Sir K. Joseph: None. The money will be put towards the cost of a programme of research.

Mr. Box: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Socialist-controlled Cardiff City Council has recently refused to extend a civic welcome to a visiting team of South African bowlers? Without condoning apartheid in any way, would not my right hon. Friend agree

that this brings Wales into ridicule and disrepute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Non-sense."]—and besmirches her good name for hospitality? Does not he further agree that it is ridiculous to involve sporting teems in party politics in this way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be asking the Minister to express a view on a matter of opinion. That is out of order. The last part of the supplementary question would seem to be more appropriate to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies.

Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order. In view of the—

Mr. Bence: —unsatisfactory nature—

Mr. Box: On a point of order.

Mr. Thomas: I am already on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot receive two points of order at once. Mr. Thomas.

Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, since you were almost bound to allow, and did allow, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) to make some very serious statements about my friends on the Cardiff City Council, which has a Labour majority, would it not be fair if we were allowed—

Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Thomas: It is a point of order. Mr. Speaker I know that you try normally to hold the balance in debate. I only appeal to you that you might possibly hold tie balance here at Question Time. Since the hon. Gentleman has got away with it—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is very optimistic. I tried to stop it. If, because I hail been a little slow, perhaps, out of kindness to find out what the hon. Gentleman was really saying, I then allowed a counter-attack further out of order, I am afraid we would be further lost in the depths of disorder.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Land Apportionment Act

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will place in the


Library a copy of the Report of the Constitutional Council of Southern Rhodesia on the Land Apportionment Act.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the fact that the Constitutional Council, of which an ex-Supreme Court judge is chairman, has unanimously condemned the Land Apportionment Act, does not the Commonwealth Secretary have anything further to say? Cannot he also condemn it?

Mr. Sandys: I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman. He asked whether I would arrange for a certain document to be put in the Library, and I said that I would arrange for that. I should have thought that this was a wholly satisfactory Answer.

Mr. Bottomley: The Secretary of State, like myself, has had the opportunity of reading the document. I want others to do so. In the light of his having had that experience, has the right hon. Gentleman no comment to make?

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONALS (WORK PERMITS)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up an inter-departmental inquiry into the need for the revision of procedures for granting work permits and immigration visas, issued by the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office, respectively, which govern the admission to this country of South Africans seeking to work and live here.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir. South African nationals holding valid passports do not require United Kingdom visas in order to enter this country. They are, however, subject to the normal aliens control arrangements governing the grant of work permits or eligibility for residence here. I have no reason to think that any change in these arrangements is called for.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that in the space of two or three hours at Southampton or at London

Airport proper and careful consideration can be given to the many factors that may arise in particular cases? Is it not necessary, so that we shall be clearly seen to be doing justice to people who come here from South Africa, that a little more time should be given for proper consideration of all the factors in the case? Will he look at this kind of procedure again?

The Prime Minister: I think that the procedure is working fairly well. More than 45,000 South Africans arrived here in 1963, and in only 20 cases were they refused permission to land. Therefore, it seems as though the procedure is working fairly well. If notice comes from the other end, it assists us here. We cannot have a lot of people arriving at British ports without permits for employment, because it simply makes confusion.

Mr. Brockway: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary on this matter? Is he aware that on a number of occasions recently, when persons have been refused admission to this country and have communicated with me from the airport within a few hours of their being expelled from the country, when I have got on to the Home Office there has been a revision of the decision? Does not this suggest that there is some necessity for a new procedure?

The Prime Minister: I am always willing to discuss this and look into it, but it does not seem that there is such necessity on the figures I have given. If people from Commonwealth or other countries overseas or foreign countries want to come here, they must have a permit which shows that they will be able to get work. It is necessary, to protect the position of our own people in this country, to enforce this requirement.

Sir C. Osborne: On the general question of issuing work permits and immigration visas, in view of the enormous problems that are being created, one of which was exemplified in the discussion on Question No. 30, is not my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of the people in this country would like the granting of immigration permits to be tightened up and fewer to be issued? Will he look at this matter from the Englishman's point of view?

The Prime Minister: I have been doing my best to express the point of view of the British citizen here. I am looking at the figures again—only 100 applications for work permits have been refused since South Africa became a foreign country, and about half of those were refused because British labour was available to do the job.

Miss Lee: In view of the relatively small number refused, is it not all the more easy administratively for the few who are refused to have some second tribunal? All of them do not know the advisability of contacting my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Brockway). Some who did not do so may have suffered injustice, and even one injustice can go all round the world and bring no credit to this country.

The Prime Minister: Our procedure is perfectly well known abroad, and it is only necessary for prospective immigrants to get a work permit and arrange for that. It is possible that many hundreds of thousands may want to come and work in this country, and we must haw order in the procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (REVIEW BODY)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Prime Minister if he will revise the terms of reference of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration so as to limit their advice to levels of remuneration, thus leaving changes in methods of remuneration for discussion between the Minister of Health and representatives of the professions.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friends discuss methods of remuneration with the professions where appropriate, but I think that it would be unreasonable to exclude this matter from the terms of reference of the Review Body.

Mr. Robinson: Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that changes in methods of remuneration can profoundly affect the service to patients; and that decisions on these matters are essentially political decisions that ought to be taken by the Minister of Health and the Government? Does not the

right hon. Gentleman consider that to leave the decision to a committee of independent businessmen is an abdication of responsibility by his Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think so. I think that the reason the hon. Gentleman has given reinforces my Answer. All I say is that because these matters can have very significant financial results they should not be excluded from this general review.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (TRANSFER)

Mr. Grey: asked the Prime Minister why he has refused to meet a deputation from the North-East Development Council to discuss the decision to transfer the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow.

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Prime Minister why he has refused to meet a deputation from the North-East Development Council to consider the decision to transfer the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow and not Tees-side.

The Prime Minister: I explained to the Executive Committee of the North-East Development Council that the reasons for the decision to move the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow had been given in Parliament, and that the decision could not be changed.
I suggested that the Committee should meet my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury if it wished to discuss the prospects of decentralisation of other Government offices to the North-East of England.

Mr. Grey: Is the Prime Minister aware that his refusal to meet a deputation from he North-East Development Council is regarded as most discourteous by its members, who think that his predecessor would have accepted the deputation, as he had done before? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there is widespread opinion that he had a personal hand in the whole affair, so would it not have been better for him to have met the deputation when, if what people think is not true, he could have denied it?

The Prime Minister: Every possible representation was made to the Government, not only from the North-East but from Liverpool and Glasgow, before the Government took their decision. After the Government had taken their decision, there was no reason to meet the North-East Development Council. There was no point in it. If, in the future, we can decentralise to the North-East we shall be very glad to discuss the matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the disappointment on the North-East Coast, and the welcome given by Scots to this decision, indicates that the compulsory direction of labour to any place would be a mistake? Is not my right hon. Friend very satisfied, therefore, that the non-use of compulsory powers was the right policy for this Government, otherwise the Scots might get away with it to the detriment of the North-East Coast?

The Prime Minister: I agree with some parts of what my hon. Friend has said, but not with the whole of it. This is an act of management. The Government are responsible for the Post Office, and we thought it wise in all the circumstances to send this particular branch of it to Glasgow.

Oral Answers to Questions — OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the respective duties of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health in the promotion of occupational health services.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer the responsibility for promoting occupational health services from the Minister of Labour to the Minister of Health.

The Prime Minister: The general responsibility for carrying out Government policy on industrial health rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour except where specific responsibility rests with the Minister for the industry concerned. The basic requirements for safeguarding the health of workers in industry are laid down in legislation and are enforced by the

inspectorates of the Ministries concerned, notably by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate. Over and above these statutory requirements, it is Government policy to encourage employers where appropriate to set up industrial health services. Such action is taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour as part of his general responsibility under the Factories Act for promoting health at work, and it would not be desirable to transfer these responsibilities to another Department as suggested by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to safeguarding the health of persons at work is made through the National Health Service, which is available to all citizens.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern of the British Medical Association, the T.U.C. and many other bodies over the fact that neither of the Departments has taken any real initiative in years to secure the spread of occupational health services; and that the only funds available for experimental centres on new estates, and the like, have come from the Nuffield Foundation? Is he aware of the concern there is that in occupational hygiene we lag behind most other industrial countries? Is not a tragic example of this the fact that the occupational hygienic centre in Slough closed down recently for lack of a very small grant that neither employers nor the Government were prepared to meet?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the Slough experiment was not better supported—that I do regret. My right hon. Friend is getting the factory inspectors to conduct a survey to establish the need for any services additional to those laid down by legislation. I should like to see what they report.

Dr. Mabon: Is the Prime Minister aware that the amount of money involved in the Slough experiment is only £20,000? Does he realise that this is a very severe blow to the development of an industrial health service? Will he consider looking at the matter again with both of his right hon. Friends?

The Prime Minister: I will look at it again after the inspectors have reported.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Slough hygienic centre was one of only three in the whole country; and that it was doing the most valuable service in decreasing diseases arising from heat, dust and noise in factories? Is he also aware that the Ministry of Labour was unable to help in this matter, although the Ministry of Health has had the highest appreciation of the service that has been given? In those circumstances, is it not desirable that there should be some co-operation between the two Departments?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, I think, knows the terms of the Factories Act. He talks about noise, dust and general cleanliness, but the Factories Act provides—and there are inspectors to make sure that it is carried out—that the factory has to preserve adequate standards of working conditions affecting health, including noise, heat, dust and general cleanliness—[Interruption.]—the hon. Member has asked about dust, cleanliness and the rest and I am answering him—including standards of cleanliness, lighting, temperature and ventilation, and removal of dust and fumes. Therefore, these things are covered by legislation that is already in existence.

Mr. Prentice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRST REPRESENTATIVE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speir: asked the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the 700th anniversary of the summoning by Simon de Montfort of the first representative English Parliament to meet at Westminster will occur in 1965, if he will consider special ways of celebrating this occasion.

The Prime Minister: I will consider this suggestion.

Mr. Speir: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this Question has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time, and that his reply is rather discouraging? Would it not be a great pity if, at a time when democracy is under attack all over the world, this

opportunity were missed for advertising and broadcasting the fact that representative Government has been flourishing at Westminster for some hundreds of years?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend will I have further consultation with me or the Leader of the House. I think that the matter would need consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grimond: Does not the Prime Minister think that the best way of celebrating this anniversary would be to reform Parliament, which is in many ways still too medieval?

Sir T. Beamish: As my right hon. Friend knows, it was at de Montfort's Parliament in 1265 that the boroughs and shires were represented for the first time in an English Parliament. In view of the great significance of this in our constitutional history, will the Prime Minister, as one possibility, consider the issue of a commemorative postage stamp to mark this occasion?

The Prime Minister: I am beginning to regret that I said I would consider this matter; nevertheless, I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FISH FRIERS LTD. (CORRESPONDENCE)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister when he received from the National Federation of Fish Friers Limited its letter of 14th April 1964 about restrictions on imports of Faroes fish; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: On 14th April; I am sending the hon. and learned Member a copy of my reply.

Mr. Hughes: Did not the Prime Minister take the opportunity during his recent visit to Aberdeen to find out something about the needs of north-east Scotland? Is it the intention to continue to neglect north-east Scotland in every way, as the Government have done since they came into power?

The Prime Minister: I was under the impression that this Question was about fish frying.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the recent inclination of the Prime Minister


to take an interest in trade unions, like the National Farmers' Union, does he think that he will be in the National Federation of Fish Friers before October?

The Prime Minister: I dare say.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Last week, I undertook to inform the House when agreement had been reached on the dates for the forthcoming Prime Ministers' meeting. I am glad to say that I have now received replies from all Commonwealth Heads of Government agreeing to a meeting from 8th July to 15th July except in the case of Zanzibar, whose President has not yet replied to my initial invitation.

Mr. Bottomley: In expressing pleasure that the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth have agreed to come to London in July, may I ask the Prime Minister what is the position of the Head of the Southern Rhodesian Government?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter on which I have not yet had a communication from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. On previous occasions, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has been a matter of consultation and agreement between the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Brockway: In reply to the Question which I last put on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister of Nyasaland would be invited. Can he now say whether that invitation will also be extended to the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia, the independence of which will be very soon?

The Prime Minister: The invitation is sent to those who are already independent, or are about to become independent, in a matter of days or weeks. So it will be Dr. Banda as the Prime Minister of Nyasaland, but nobody else.

Mr. Wall: Is it the Government's wish that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia should inherit the right which

has been enjoyed by his predecessors since, I think, 1932, and be invited to attend the Prime Ministers' meeting?

The Prime Minister: This has not been a right. It has always been decided in agreement with the Prime Ministers.

Sir P. Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend make his statement concerning the invitations a little clearer? Are these invitations to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting tendered on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, or does the invitation have to be unanimous from all the existing member countries of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the invitations to a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting originally go from the United Kingdom Government to other Commonwealth Prime Ministers or Prime Ministers of independent Commonwealth countries, Southern Rhodesia is in this matter a special case and has been treated as such for the last few years.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Prime Minister in consultation with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers about a possible invitation to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: Not until I hear from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia whether he wishes to be invited.

Mr. Grimond: Do we understand that Northern Rhodesia will definitely not be invited? While Southern Rhodesia is a special case, can the Prime Minister tell us exactly how this special case stands? Is he in consultation with the rest of the Commonwealth? When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is awaiting word from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, does this mean that an invitation has been sent to him or not?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The question is whether the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia wishes to be invited. If he should so wish, I would consult the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Northern Rhodesia is not independent; the independence date will not come until the autumn. The


Nyasaland independence date comes, I think, on 7th July, just before the Prime Ministers meet. So we have sent Nyasaland an informal invitation, which, no doubt, will be made formal when the Prime Ministers meet.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In greatly welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement and realising that the deliberations of the conference will inevitably have to be confidential if they are to achieve very much purpose, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will seriously consider the great importance of considering both trade and disarmament policy at the conference?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the Government, or, at least, those responsible, have made up their minds that Northern Rhodesia will not be invited, and having regard to the position in Central Africa, which, in July, will place Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia on the same basis, does not the Prime Minister think that if he invites one without the other he will not be helping towards securing friendly relations in Central Africa?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which can be settled only after consultation with the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

FISSILE MATERIALS

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
Her Majesty's Government welcome the announcements by President Johnson and by Mr. Khrushchev that their Governments are reducing their planned production of fissile materials for weapons purposes. I believe that the public announcement of these reductions will do much to foster that confidence which is essential if we are to build on the achievement of the Test Ban Treaty.
Production of fissile material in the United Kingdom has, of course, always been on a very much smaller scale than in the United States of America or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. For their part, as was explained in the recently published White Paper on

Defence, Her Majesty's Government have already adjusted their supplies of fissile material to the minimum necessary to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent and to meet all our defence requirements for the foreseeable future.
Military plutonium production is being gradually terminated. The civil reactors which have been, and are being, brought into service in this country are part of the United Kingdom programme for electric power generation or for research and development of new techniques in the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. By the nature of their operations these reactors produce plutonium. Part of this will be used for civil purposes in the United Kingdom and part mill be sent to the United States under an agreement of which Parliament was informed on 19th November, 1962, whereby U235 is supplied in exchange by the United States Government.
Our plans do not envisage the use of any of the plutonium produced by our civil reactors in the United Kingdom weapons programme and I am informed by the United States Government that they have no intention of using the plutonium received from us for weapons purposes.
Thus, by the policies which we have adopted and are continuing to pursue, the United Kingdom is contributing fully to the initiative that President Johnson and Mr. Khrushchev are now taking.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this side join Her Majesty's Government in welcoming this agreement, bilaterally concluded, between President Johnson and Chairman Khrushchev? Is he further aware that since it has been estimated that the total stock of nuclear explosive power in the hands of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is equivalent to 25 tons for every man, woman and child on earth, this can hardly be regarded as a positive act of disarmament, but that most of us will feel that it is, nevertheless, a welcome psychological step on the road to peace?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is true that


this is not actually a measure of disarmament, but it is placing a limit on the production of material which is pertinent and significant in the nuclear age.

Mr. Grimond: While welcoming the agreement, may I ask whether it is not the case that there is to be no policing of it? As the Prime Minister has sometimes said that he is hopeful about getting arms reduction with inspection on either side of the East-West frontier, I wonder whether he considers that, in the better atmosphere which this agreement generates, the time will be opportune to make proposals for an agreement of this nature with inspection.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that inspection was thought by anybody to be necessary in this case. There is clearly a mutual interest here. It suits both the Russians and Americans to have this agreement. It suits everybody, so nobody will be tempted to break it. Inspection is necessary over the wider field of disarmament to give confidence, but we want to reduce inspection to the absolute minimum.

Mr. W. Yates: As the whole international situation has changed since Cuba—and this agreement is one small example—what initiative will the Prime Minister or Her Majesty's Government take concerning the keeping of fissile material in the hands of those countries which at present have it? What policing will be suggested if an agreement on these lines can be begun?

The Prime Minister: I think that this is at any rate a beginning between the nuclear Powers mainly concerned. If other Powers are to be brought in this will need further consideration by the two big nuclear Powers and our country.

Mr. A. Henderson: In also welcoming the statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the statement made last week by the United States delegate at the Geneva Conference, that if a cut-off in nuclear production were coupled with an agree-

ment for the freezing of all nuclear weapons the road would be open to a major reduction in armaments? Can we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government's desire to secure Polaris missiles will not be allowed to stand in the way of securing this very vital agreement?

The Prime Minister: There is no question of the arrangements which we have about our Polaris submarines standing in the way of this. There is no question of this in the minds of the United States at all. Neither would I think that there would be any obstacle in the minds of the Russians, because the freezing of nuclear weapons is projected forward to a point where it covers both our programme and the American programme, and, I think, anything that the Russians wish to achieve, but this has yet to be worked out at Geneva.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Since President Johnson and Mr. Khrushchev have made simultaneous statements, would it be right to infer that they had negotiations before those statements were made? If so, did Her Majesty's Government take part in the negotiations with the United States and the Russians?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we did. We were in the closest consultation with the United States all the time and I was able to send a message to Mr. Khrushchev quite lately telling him what great importance we attach to this agreement being tripartite.

Mr. Pentland: Can the Prime Minister give a firm assurance that plutonium which has been exported from this country to France is being used by the French exclusively for civil and not for military purposes?

The Prime Minister: I do not know the answer to that question. I should like the hon. Member to put it down, so that I can give him an accurate answer at a future date. I can tell him now that we are not exporting any military plutonium, but I should like to be certain what we are exporting for civil use.

PLANNING APPLICATION, EALING

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the imminent consideration by the Ealing Borough Council of an application for planning consent to extend their foundry at Long Drive, Greenford, submitted on behalf of Allied Iron Founders Ltd. soon after the payment by that company of at least £150 towards the expenses of a political party to which several members of the Council belong.
I submit that this is a definite matter by referring to one single specific issue. The facts, to the best of my knowledge, are not in dispute. They are that in the Guardian for Wednesday, 15th April, information was published of the fact that this company had made a donation of at least £150 to the North Ealing Conservative Party. On Thursday, 16th April, I had a look at the statutory register of planning applications kept by Ealing Borough Council, to which any member of the public has access, and I found that on 2nd April last planning application was submitted by the company for the erection of a single-storey extension to its foundry to provide an additional enamel shop and storage space.
The last piece of information I obtained only a few moments ago, when, in view of the fact that the cash payment and the application for consent were only five weeks apart, I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in order to avoid any note of suspicion falling on the company or the Council, to deal with it under Section 22(1) of the 1962 Act, by which he can call in an application.
The Minister having refused to call in the application, the matter remains for Ealing Borough Council to consider it. The Planning Committee of the Council is to consider it on Monday evening of next week. There would not appear to be any opportunity in the House between now and next Monday evening for this matter to be raised in the ordinary course of business, the Adjournment debates having been

announced and the ordinary debates in the House having been fixed.
As the Minister has the power to call in such an application if he desires, it is a matter of public importance and it deals with more than the ordinary administration of the law. If the matter is considered by the Ealing Borough Council, in view of the close proximity of a considerable cash payment to a political party in the majority on the Council, it will bring the law into contempt and the right of the public to trust in impartility in overseeing planning applications on the part of a local authority.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the imminent consideration by the Ealing Borough Council of an application for planning consent to extend their foundry at Long Drive, Greenford, submitted on behalf of Allied Iron Founders Ltd. soon after the payment by that company of at least £150 towards the expenses of a political party to which severa members of the Council belong.
I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request to leave that matter to the House. The underlying implication is dependent upon a number of speculative matters.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. W. Hamilton: With the permission of the House, I wish to make a personal statement.
In the debate yesterday I stated that the Preside It and Vice-President of the Selby Bridge Company were respectively Sir Clive Milnes-Coates, Bart., and the Earl of Halifax.
This statement was based on information supplied to me by the House of Commons Library staff. I have received this morning from the member of the staff concerned a letter to the effect that these two gentlemen are not connected with the Selby Bridge Company, but with the Ardwark Bridge, Yorkshire, owned by the Yorkshire Farmers Ltd.
I apologise to the House for the mistake that was quite innocently made.

EDUCATION (STATUS OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS)

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that any proposal by a local education authority to change the status or nature of a secondary school shall require the approval of the Minister of Education.
I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept the fact that I introduce this Motion in no dogmatic mood. Indeed, this is the sort of subject matter about which dogmatic assertions are to be avoided. There is, I feel, a lot of common ground between both sides of the House. At the same time, there are doubtless, differences of emphasis. Probably few of us, in any party, would treat the tripartite division between grammar, technical and modern secondary schools as sacrosanct,
Hardly any of us I imagine, would cling to the principle of selection at 11-plus or selection at any other particular age in all cases, and in all circumstances. On both sides of the House, there is, I feel confident, a majority of hon. Members who wish to see ample and fruitful experiments in the field of secondary education. Perhaps the fully comprehensive school has appeared to be the most encouraging experiment in the last decade or so, and if suitable buildings were available in much greater numbers it might be possible to press ahead with schools of this kind at a greater rate. But for a considerable time, at any rate, the physical limitations and resources and the lack of appropriate buildings must limit this kind of experiment. Therefore, as the House is aware, local education authorities have evolved or are contemplating a variety of other experiments, of which the so-called Leicester plan is best known.
All sorts of schemes are now being mooted or contemplated in places as far apart as Bradford, Cardiff and Liverpool. Some of these appear to be soundly conceived; others seem to be slightly bizarre. Some are obviously designed to create a kind of comprehensive system in separate buildings. Others so change the ages of intake, or limit the ages for actual secondary education, as to make some experienced educationists doubt whether they can be recon-

ciled with the provisions of a truly good secondary school career.
Some of the schemes now planned must involve, in effect, the destruction of grammar schools and other secondary schools of long-established merit. I do not wish to exaggerate unfairly the merit of some of our best grammar schools. I can, however, speak with some personal knowledge of some of those in South Wales. The Cardiff Boys' High School, the Cardiff Girls' High School, the other Cardiff high schools, the Barry Grammar School, in my constituency, the Whet-church (Glamorgan) Grammar School, and many others, have astonishing records of achievement. Annually, their pupils gain a surprising number of scholarships to Oxford and Cambridge as well as to other universities.
Speaking of the United Kingdom as a whole, I need hardly remind hon. Members today of the large number of scientists, technologists and industrialists who are trained in our grammar schools. Therefore, I respectfully submit that in our determination to explore the value of new methods, we should not he disposed to destroy the identity, and the contribution, of grammar schools or other secondary schools of established quality. As far as possible, too, we should heed the importance attached in the Education Act, 1944, to the principle of parental preference. Again, I do not wish to exaggerate; but, certainly, some of the new schemes now contemplated appear to pay little or no heed to the wishes or desires of the parents of the children to be affected.
Hon. Members may ask, quite pertinently, whether I wish to destroy all the initiative of local education authorities. That is not my desire. But the schemes now contemplated are so diverse, the consequences of change so great, that I feel that we should provide some ultimate safeguard beyond those now existing.
As the House is aware, the personal power of the Minister of Education to intervene is very small; if, indeed, it is not to be described as negligible. By Clause 13(1) of the 1944 Act
(1) Where a local education authority intend—

(a) to establish a new secondary school;
(b) to maintain as a county school any school which at the time is not such a school; or


(c) to cease to maintain any county school, or, save as provided by the next following section of this Act, any voluntary school:

they shall submit proposals for that purpose to the Minister.
The rest of Clause 13 of the 1944 Act prescribes the powers of persons to submit objections to the Minister, and the powers of the Minister to modify or approve the proposals. In addition, Section 68 of the 1944 Act prescribes, in effect, certain powers of the Minister of Education to intervene in what he deems to be unreasonable exercise of functions in such cases.
These, I submit, are most valuable powers and safeguards. They have not destroyed or curtailed the initiative of local education authorities in the setting up of new schools, or the other special cases for which the powers apply. But these valuable safeguards do not obtain, and do not extend, to the kind of readjustments and alterations to which I have referred.
At present, the Minister of Education does not possess similar powers where proposals are put forward which involve a change in the status or nature of any existing secondary school. The powers of persons affected, parents, etc., to submit objections do not extend to these cases. All that my proposed Bill would seek to do, in brief, is to modify and change in one small particular the Act of 1944 and to add this sort of case to the expressly stated cases in Section 13 of the Act. In those circumstances, I hope that the House will agree to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

3.56 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I oppose the Motion. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), a member of the party which constantly tells us that we are wrong, because, so it is said, we believe that the man in Whitehall knows best, should ask leave to introduce a Bill which would give far more responsibility to the Minister and take responsibility away from the local authorities. This is one illogicality in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
It is true that many local education authorities today are anxious to experiment. The Minister of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for schools, has constantly said that he

believes that there should be freedom for experiment in education. The hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, is urging the opposite If a local authority has spent a great deal of time and trouble working out exactly what should be done in an experiment in education, perhaps spending two or three years on preparing the scheme, all its efforts, according to the hon. Gentleman, should depend upon the good will of the Minister or upon the influence of pressures which can be brought upon him to deny or give permission for the scheme to be put into effect.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about parental preferences. Pressures are brought to bear on parents by some of the heads of grammar schools where experiments are taking place. In my own local authority area, a circular has been sent by the head of a grammar school to all the parents of children in the school asking them to vote against the proposal; of the local authority to have new experiments in education in Stoke-on-Treat. This is the kind of pressure which we should be watching. Full consideration should be paid to parental preferences, of course, as provided by the 1944 Act, but we should be trying to prevent that kind of pressure.
Moreover, members of local authorities who are opposed to schemes which have been prepared sometimes, perhaps because they have children in one or other school, try themselves to bring pressure on the Minister. I have some correspondence which discloses that a Tory candidate opposing one of my hon. Friends in Stoke has himself been corresponding with the Minister and trying to influence him to prevent the experiment in Stoke-on-Trent taking place.

Sir Thomas Moore: It is not a crime.

Mrs. Slater: It is not a crime, but there is, at least, the matter of courtesy between members of local authorities and Members of Parliament for the area.
The whole purpose behind the hon. Gentleman's Motion is a basic opposition to experiment in education. Nowadays, when there is so much change in education, we should be going forward.


If we were to wait until every local authority had adequate buildings for comprehensive schools, or we were able to build absolutely new schools, we should need to wait until after I was dead, and until after the younger generation now in the schools were dead, before experiments could take place.
It is no good being sanctimonious about it and saying that hon. Members on both sides want to see experiment in education if we are not prepared to make provision so that experiment can

take place. The country will benefit from the experiments and experience which go-ahead local authorities are prepared to undertake. They devote a lot of time and trouble to discussing and preparing their schemes in every detail, and they should be free to do so.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 176.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[4.1 p.m.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Barlow, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hendry, Forbes
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hiley, Joseph
Pitman, Sir James


Biffen, John
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton


Bingham, R. M.
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hollingworth, John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Black, Sir Cyril
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Brewis, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Roots, William


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Iremonger, T. L.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Speir, Rupert


Channon, H. P. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Ctark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cleaver, Leonard
Kershaw, Anthony
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cordle, John
Lagden, Godfrey
Storey, Sir Samuel


Coulson, Michael
Lambton, Viscount
Studholme, Sir Henry


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Talbot, John E.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Curran, Charles
Lilley, F. J. P.
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Litchfield, Capt. John
Turner, Colin


Donaldson, cmdr. C. E. M.
Longbottom, Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Doughty, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G, B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Eden, Sir John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Sir John(Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Walker, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McMaster, Stanley R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maginnis, John E.
Weils, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Maitland, Sir John
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Freeth, Denzil
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gammans, Lady
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gardner, Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Woollam, John


Glover, Sir Douglas
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)



Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gurden, Harold
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Mr. Tiley and Mr. Goodhew.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Beaney, Alan


Ainsley, William
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bence, Cyril


Albu Austen
Barnett, Guy
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)




Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pargiter, G. A.


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Parker, John


Boardman, H.
Holman, Percy
Paton, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holt, Arthur
Peart, Frederick


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hooson, H. E.
Pentland, Norman


Bowles, Frank
Howell, Charles A, (Perry Barr)
Popplewell, Ernest


Boyden, James
Howie, W.
Prentice, R. E.


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James H.
Probert, Arthur


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, Harry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Chapman, Donald
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crosland, Anthony
Jeger, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Ross, William


Darling, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Short, Edward


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julian (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Ledger, Bon
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Diamond, John
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Small, William


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Doig, Peter
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lubbock, Eric
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Edwards, Rt, Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McBride, N.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McCann, J.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Evans, Albert
MacColl, James
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fitch, Alan
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Simon
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, Archie
Timmons, John


Galpem, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Ginshurg, David
Marsh, Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P, C.
Mason, Roy
Warbey, William


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, William (Waisall, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Whitlock, William


Grey, Charles
Mitchison, G. R.
Wigg, George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gunter, Ray
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
O'Malley, B. K.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Harper, Joseph
Oram, A. E.



Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Healey, Denis
Owen, Will
Mrs. Slater and Mr. Allaun.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [14th April]

Resolutions reported;

[For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April. 1964; Vol. 693, c. 274–282.]

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith on each Resolution, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

First to Fourteenth Resolutions agreed to.

FINANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to trustee savings banks of sums for the performance by trustee savings banks of functions conferred on them under the National Debt Act 1958.

Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [20th April]

Resolution reported.

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description, or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money] and agreed to this day and upon the Order [20th April] relating to Finance Bill (Procedure), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Green, and Mr. Maurice Macmillan.

FINANCE

Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

RESALE PRICES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th April].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 4.—(CIVIL REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF RESTRICTIONS.)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 4, line 11, to leave out subsection (4).

The Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment Amendment No. 51, in page 4, line 11, to leave out "If", and Amendment No. 52, in page 4, line 12, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 28 and to insert:
the burden of proving that supplies of goods which have been withheld by the supplier from a dealer were withheld because the dealer had acted as described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section or was likely to act as described in paragraph (b) of that subsection in relation to the goods in question shall be upon the party bringing the proceedings".

Mr. Jay: Clause 4, together with Clause 2, compels certain traders in certain circumstances to trade with other people when they do not wish to do so. Whether this is right or not, we say that this is a suggested form of legislation which needs to be carefully considered.
Our general attitude throughout the Bill has been this. As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State knows, we have supported Clause 1 which, in effect, repeals Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. That Act gave suppliers and manufacturers the power to enforce their prices on retailers against their will. We opposed that provision in 1956 and we now support its repeal.
I may say, in passing, that the Secretary of State, who was getting very self-righteous last week about the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to that matter, is not in a very strong position to talk about consistency, because in 1956, when we were opposing this proposal, he was the Chief Whip in the Government who were shepherding everybody into the Lobby in favour of it. Now he is not merely asking us to repeal it, which we are quite willing to do, but is enthusiastically and sanctimoniously in favour of it and is making the accusation of inconsistency against anybody who is not in favour of it. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is in the strongest position to take up this high moral attitude.
I am not accusing the Secretary of State of malicious dishonesty. The trouble about him is that he always reads out whatever brief he has at the moment. He reads it very fluently and is almost word perfect. In 1956, he had one brief, and now he has another. In Brussels, he had one brief, and at Geneva another. He reads them very nicely, but the trouble is that the briefs tend to change from time to time.
I return to our attitude on this matter. Our reason for opposing Section 25 was and for supporting Clause 1 is not purely the familiar economic arguments. We thought that as a matter of equity and civil liberty it was rather a steep proposition for Parliament to enable one trader to enforce on another a contract which that other trader had never entered into. It might be that that was justifiable, but we thought it a steep proposition and we were never satisfied that the case for it had been made out. When it comes to Clause 1, in respect of which we agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and to Clauses 2 and 4, which go together, it does not seem to us that the right hon. Gentleman has made out his case.
In Clause 2, Parliament is asked to say that in certain circumstances, which I will attempt to elucidate, I hope correctly, with the assistance of all the legal advice which we have today, some traders shall be compelled by law to trade with those with whom they do not wish to trade. Whatever the economic arguments, the arguments for this on grounds of general equity and civil liberty are the other way round. I am

not saying that it would never be justifiable for Parliament to say that people must trade unwillingly with others not of their selection. But in that case a strong case must be made out. I do not think, therefore, that the Secretary of State can wholly justify this proposition in the rather sweeping way that he, or one of his colleagues, did at an earlier stage of the Bill by saying that if we did not have this provision we should undermine the whole purpose of the Bill because people would surreptitiously enforce resale price maintenance by withdrawing their supplies. That is an argument, but I do not think it is the whole argument with which we must deal.
We are attempting, by the Amendment, to put the burden of proof in a disputed case about the manufacturer's motive not on the manufacturer, but on the plaintiff—the retailer, member of the public, Registrar or the public authority bringing the action. The position under the Bill as drafted would be that the manufacturer would seek to withdraw his supplies. Proceedings would be brought against him for unlawfully doing that and the onus of proof would be on him to prove that his motive in withdrawing supplies was not the fear that the retailer night reduce his prices.
If the Amendment were carried the position would be that, so that the manufacturer should lose his case, it would have to be established that he was withdrawing supplies on the ground that the retailer was likely to sell below the recommended price. In other words, without Clause 4(4), Clause 2 would stand and, it effect, the onus of proof would be the other way round.
As the Bill now stands the onus of proof is, in a sense, doubly on the manufacturer and not on the public authority or whoever might bring the action. Although we have not yet reached that part of the Bill, for a specific exemption to be given to a certain class of goods the onus is put on the manufacturer or group of manufacturers who wish to have that exemption. We will come to that later. Suppose a manufacturer does not obtain that exemption and suppose that in certain circumstances he seeks to withdraw his supplies, as the Bill stands the onus of proof—because of the provision in subsection (4)—is again on


the manufacturer, who must prove that his motives were not of the wrong kind.
When some of my hon. Friends and I remarked on Second Reading that one of the curious features of the Bill was that it went so far as to lay a legal obligation on people to trade in certain circumstances with those with whom they do not wish to trade, the Minister shook his head in apparent disagreement and gave the general impression that that was not the intention of the Bill. Nobody now doubts that that is a feature of the Measure.
If we consider Clause 2 with Clause 4(4) it is perfectly clear that that is the case. For example, Clause 2(1) states:
…it shall be unlawful for any supplier to withhold supplies of any goods from a dealer seeking to obtain them for resale in the United Kingdom on the ground that the dealer— 
(a) has sold in the United Kingdom at a price below the resale price goods obtained…
In other words, it is unlawful for him to withdraw his supplies on the grounds mentioned in the Clause.
That means that he must make his goods available. He is, therefore, compelled to trade. We find on reading Clause 4 that the Bill spells out what is meant by the phrase "on the ground that" because it tells us in what circumstances it shall be presumed—and "presumed" is the word used in the Clause—that the supplier is acting with those motives.
That is presumed if three conditions are fulfilled. The first is that there must be a condition of fact that he is seeking to withhold supplies. I assume that one, but then we find that, over and above that, if it is shown that the manufacturer was selling goods to the retailer in question previously or that he is now selling goods of the same kind to other retailers, that, too, is a condition.
I urge the Committee to note this because that was precisely what we pointed out on Second Reading, when the Minister appeared to be trying to deny it. I therefore draw attention to the words in Clause 4(4,a):
…down to the time when supplies were so withheld the supplier was doing business with the dealer or was supplying goods of

the same description to other dealers carrying on business in similar circumstances…
That makes it clear that not merely does the Clause compel the trader to supply to people with whom he does not want to trade, but also makes it compulsory for him in certain circumstances to supply goods to another trader with whom he has never traded up to that point. There can be no doubt that that is what the Bill means. We pointed this out on Second Reading and the Minister then attempted to deny that that was its meaning. I do not think that he will deny it now.
Therefore, the first condition is that the trader
…was doing business with the dealer or was supplying goods of the same description…
The second is that the dealer must have either already made a reduction in the price to a point below the recommended price—I am tempted to use the phrase "price cutting", but that may be considered too tendentious—or, alternatively, have made it clear that he intends to reduce the price to that point. If those two conditions are fulfilled, then, according to the Clause, the manufacturer can prove that that was not his motive.
The manufacturer is compelled to supply goods against his will to the dealer in question and we reach the situation, therefore, that the manufacturer must, first, trade against his will—even with someone with whom he has never traded before and with whom he does not wish to trade—and, secondly, the onus of proof is doubly on him because if he is to get his exemption he must first prove the case before the Court and a second onus of proof is on him because of the words at the end of the Clause:
…it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the supplies were withheld on the groundߪ
Thirdly, the manufacturer must prove his own motive. As a layman, this appears to me a rather odd thing to demand. Fourthly—on top of all this—he must prove the negative because he must, in effect, prove that his motive was not fear that the dealer might be selling goods below the recommended price.
I should have thought that all this represented a rather stiff proposition. It seems to go a good deal too far and


my hon. Friends and I propose what we believe to be a fair and moderate Amendment of this proposition. If hon. Member; opposite intend to pass legislation compelling people to trade against their will they are setting some remarkable precedents.
There has all along been a standing controversy about what is called direction of industry. I have always argued that although one can legislate in the sense of saying, "If you set up a factory in London you will be subject to a penalty", I do not believe that one should legislate by saying "If you do not set up a factory in, say, Glasgow, we will put you in prison", because the answer may be, "I do not know how to set up a factory in Glasgow because I do not have the capital to do so and, anyway, you should not compel me to do business against my will".
4.30 p.m
That is a point of view which we on this side have always maintained against some people who, perhaps, have not fully understood the issue, but I must say that if the right hon. Gentleman is to legislate like this he will set a remarkable precedent which will extend, I should think, a good deal wider.
In this Amendment we are being very moderate. We are not saying that in no circumstances, as a buttress to the main purpose of the Bill, should we compel people to trade with those with whom they do not want to trade. By the Amendment and the two following ones we are merely saying that if a complaint is brought, then in certain cases, in our view, at least the onus of proof must be the other way round.
That is to say—I hope that that is what this Amendment provides—it is not to be obligatory on the manufacturer to prove that his motive was not fear of price reductions. It would be obligatory on the plaintiff—whoever that was; I suppose it would normally be the retailer, or it might be some member of the public, or it might be the Registrar—to prove that this was the motive of the manufacturer, contrary to the intentions of the Bill, in withholding supplies.
We should simply be left with the provision in Clause 2 that
it shall be unlawful for any supplier to withhold supplies

on the grounds stated. As I understand the law, it would then be for the Court to decide whether the supplier was doing it on those grounds, and then, presumably, the onus would be on the people bringing the case to show that that was why the goods were withheld. This Amendment would shift the onus of proof in one case only, not in another we shall discuss later. It merely provides that where a mm is having that obligation laid upon him at least the main onus of proof should be on those advancing the argument and not on the manufacturer against whom it is advanced.
That would seem to us to preserve the main purpose of the Bill, and as far as ordinary equity and normal liberty of trading goes would be much more moderate, more reasonable, more acceptable to the Committee, I should have thought, than the rather extreme proposals which the Secretary of State has laid before us.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), in moving his Amendment, has exaggerated his interpretation of the Clause. He said, if I understood him correctly, that the Clause is forcing a man to trade against his will. It is not really forcing a man to trade against his will. It is providing that he should not refuse to trade with the intention of maintaining resale prices; he should not have that as his intention in withholding the goods.

Mr. Jay: As the Bill stands, unless he can prove that that is not his intention, then he is compelled to trade.

Mr. Page: The burden of proof is thrown on him by subsection (4) of the Clause, and although I support subsection (4) partially, in certain cases I would consider it should not apply. That is the argument I want to adduce.
As I understand it, the combination of this subsection (4) with Clause 2 is that goods are presumed to be unlawfully withheld if two things apply. In each of these categories there are alternatives, first, if they were actually withheld, or refusal to accept less favourable prices. That is Clause 2 (3,a). Or if the purchaser were treated in a less favourable manner than other purchasers. That is Clause 2 (3,b). These


things have to be proved. Also, if the dealer, a customer of the supplier, had been undercutting, or he threatens to undercut; that is the second class of items which one has to prove.
There is good reason why my right hon. Friend should have the Clause in the Bill and throw the burden generally on the dealer who refuses supplies except where it involves the condition as to cash payment or refusal of credit. I consider that the supplier should always have the right to refuse credit and that the burden should not be thrown on him to prove that he has not refused credit for some wrongful reason. If that can be excluded from the Clause, then I think that the Clause is unobjectionable.
The situation which I fear is that, as the Clause stands, the dice are so loaded against the supplier who gives generous credit terms to his customers that he will be frightened to go on giving those terms, that he may lay himself open to litigation if a newcomer comes along and says, "You are giving credit terms to so many hundreds of your retailers who are buying from you. I want the same sort of terms." If he is to be faced with litigation if he does not give those same terms of credit to the newcomer, I think that his customers will suffer because he will stop giving credit to them.

Mr. William Wells: We are grateful to the hon. Member for being with us so far, but why does he draw this distinction between credit and everything else? Suppose that the case may be simply that the manufacturer has not enough goods to supply all the dealers who come to him and chooses to prefer one dealer rather than another, if he has not enough goods. What is wrong with that? Why should he have the burden of proof of this put on him?

Mr. Page: He will, of course, be able to show, if any complaint is brought against him, that that was the reason for refusing to supply the goods, but if the burden of proof in all cases is turned the other way I think that there is too great opportunity of sabotaging the whole purpose of the Bill.
Let me take an example. Suppose the wholesaler gives credit to his normal

customers and Joe Bloggins comes along and says to him, "I am just going to set up a shop and I shall sell at lower prices than your recommended prices. You have got to give me credit." The wholesaler says. "No" If the Clause stands as it is, then Joe Bloggins can say, "Now prove that my saying that I was going to undercut your recommended prices was not your reason for refusing me credit."
I think that that is unreasonable; but apart from that, the possibility, without subsection (4), of sabotaging the whole Bill is quite substantial, and I think it reasonable to provide against the other things than a refusal to supply credit. The supplier should always have the right to make that refusal, but I do not think that it will harm him if he is obliged to say, if he refuses for another reason, that it was not for the purpose of maintaining resale prices.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for raising the point of cash and credit, but I should like to take the credit argument a little further and point out that under the Clause, and, indeed, under the Bill, till we have some clarification from the Minister about regard to cash and credit—and we have not had that clarification as yet—it will have to be assumed that a person starting a new business will be entitled from the supplier to credit. We have the complication: who is to be the supplier? In some cases the question is whether it is to be the second or third wholesaler, or whether it is to be the manufacturer. The Bill is not very clear about these things when it refers to the supplier.
What about the person who is already a trader, who has defaulted on his accounts with his existing wholesaler or supplier and who has gone from supplier to supplier owing money to each and every one? That point is not clarified. Before we can deal with the Clause in its entirety, we should hear the Minister's view about the contracts which have to be reached in respect of cash and credit trade.
I am not satisfied with the Bill, and I support the Amendment because it eliminates subsection (4). We have to remember that in the world of distribution there are all kinds of people and


all kinds of methods. For instance, there are stationers' shops which do not sell newspapers. They receive, from the wholesaler who sells stationery supplies, certain magazines and periodicals, but they do not receive newspapers. If the Clause is passed, those retailers will be able to claim from the newspaper wholesaler the right to sell newspapers. Moreover, subject to the exemptions, they will be able to sell newspapers at any price they like.
That leads me to the conclusion that it is wrong to place the onus of responsibility on the wholesaler on every possible occasion, as is done in the Bill. We have to take into consideration the fact that the wholesaler has his own finances to look after and has the problem of turnover. In many cases turnover varies between different sections of the distributive trade. One can have a twice-a-year turnover in the fashion trade, fifty-two times a year in butchery, and perhaps once in every three weeks in groceries—if one wants a fair type of turnover in the type of trade which is related to the average receipts in a grocer's shop. The wholesaler has to provide for the whole of his retailers in order to take the burden of turnover from their shoulders as much as he possibly can.
By the Clause we are saying to the wholesaler, "You must carry excessive stocks in case, if you have not the stocks to supply all and sundry at the time of request, you are implicated by the Bill". That is quite unfair. If there are wrongs in the world of resale price maintenance and if there must be abolition, then let us place the responsibility upon the people who are affected. What about the wholesaler who also has retail establishments? Instead of dealing with resale price maintenance we should there be dealing with direct price maintenance. It would be possible for some of the tobacco wholesalers who also have retail establishments to sell packets of cigarettes at less than the price charged by their customers on the wholesale side, and yet to get away with it without let or hindrance because it was direct price maintenance. But the moment it was brought within the scope of resale price maintenance, the difficulty would arise. I suggest that it is utterly wrong to place the onus of responsibility on all occasions on the wholesaler.
I believe that the Minister is putting a rod in pickle for himself because—heaven forbid—he may be the Home Secretary, and if he takes the conception of law as he has it in the Bill and applies it to the criminal law it will no longer be necessary to prove that the murderer committed the crime; the murderer will have to prove that he did not commit it. That would be a negation of justice, and that is why I think that to accept subsection (4) is to place far too much responsibility on the wholesaler. It will create untold difficulties, not only in anomalies in the world of distribution but for the wholesaler.
It would have been far better if the Minister had left subsection (4) out of the Bill and—even in the interests of the abolition of resale price maintenance, had left it to the exact wording of Clause 2

Sir Douglas Glover: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in opposing the Amendment and in asking my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to the question of credit. I will not repeat all the arguments. We had a tough time on this matter on Clause 2.

Mr. Leslie Hale: No.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member was here and should remember it. He should not have such a short memory. He is usually "on the ball".

Mr. Hale: I thought that it was a very smooth debate.

Sir D. Glover: Then we had a very smooth discussion, and I stand corrected, but it was long and interesting. The hon. Member certainly intervened at great length. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made a point about financial problems, and my right hon. Friend said that under this Clause he would try to help. I hope that before we leave the Clause we shall have reassurance from my right hon. Friend on this aspect.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is the hon. Member asking the Government to say whether they will introduce a fresh Amendment to the Clause to cover the point which he is making?

Sir D. Glover: That is exactly what I am doing.
I turn to restrictive franchises and dealer arrangements. All through the Bill my right hon. Friend has stated that restrictive franchises, dealer arrangements, agencies, and so on, were not affected by the Bill. I believe that in law this is true, but the number of lawyers in the House who are not convinced that this is so is amazing. The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) either has not studied the Bill, or in his view in law these restrictions are not valid.
4.45 p.m.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend, between now and the Report stage, could make the situation crystal clear by bringing in a new Clause stating that restrictive franchises and dealer arrangements which have operated in the past, or which a firm may wish to bring into force in future, are not affected by the Bill. If he were to do that, it would not widen or narrow the scope of the Bill, but it would be a great assurance to the enormous number of distributors and retailers who would thus see this protection in black and white and realise that their situation will not be adversely affected.
My right hon. Friend says that under the Bill as it stands they will not be adversely affected, but, by categorically stating it in the Bill, he would remove a good deal of misunderstanding which exists not only among people outside but among a number of hon. Members.

Mr. Hale: The intervention of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and his modest request to the Secretary of State to introduce an Amendment to make this provision crystal clear seemed to me to be somewhat hopeful aspirations. No one at the moment, not even my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), whose Amendment I support, has suggested that the situation is anywhere near crystal clear. But, of course, we do not know what has been said upstairs. We get our information about the progress of the Bill from the Press.
At an earlier stage of our proceedings I paid humble tribute to the Secretary of State, but now I am not sure that I was completely justified, although I do not withdraw it for I am anxious to be generous to him. I congratulated

the right hon. Gentleman on his rout of the rebels. We are told, however, that they did a retreat from a mere sortie, that they are now on the attack again, and that concessions have been made. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman has been led to expect the same confabulations in another place.

Sir D. Glover: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole proceedings on the Bill have taken place on the Floor of the House. I have only repeated what I have heard in this Committee.

Mr. Hale: I am glad that the colleagues of the hon. Member for Ormskirk have kept him informed. It has never been my desire to intervene in a private row, but the hon. Gentleman referred to me and I want to raise a point of substance.
This is a highly complex Measure which no one seems clearly to understand—certainly I do not. I therefore take refuge in theory. It is claimed that, if we do not know what it means, the judiciary will. That was said about clearance sales and about the Arabian oryx. But my recollection of litigation is that it is the habit of many judges to pretend not to know what a Bath bun is or not to have heard of a distinguished lady of the stage or her activities. Indeed, judicial ignorance often is taken to the point of being ludicrous.
We are told that it will be all right for the retailer, because he will be able to sue the supplier. Of course, we all know that the courts of law are open to all, like the London Tavern. Indeed, one can apply for legal aid to sue and can bring an action which, according to the previous subsection, is conditioned on the terms of an action for breach of statutory duty. But there is a standard of proof apparently quite different from the standard of proof under the criminal law because the supplier only has to establish a reasonable cause. He does not necessarily have to be right. He does not have to bring the sort of evidence which he would have to bring under the common law and the normal statute law of the land.
This brings us to the condition of the retailer. The wholesalers cut off his supplies. What happens? The retailer


goes out of business. How long will it take him to bring litigation? When will the issue be tried? What will happen to his shop until then? What real chance is there of his contesting the action of the wholesalers?
It may be said that, after an application for an injunction, one can ask for an early trial. But even then the retailer will be faced with the day-to-day problems of carrying on business, and without the goods he cannot do so. If credit and supplies are both cut off, the retailer will be out of business before he can do anything. The suggestion is that the retailer should embark on litigation against a wholesaler on an issue on which that wholesaler may have the full support of his trade association. Litigation is not as easy as is implied.
It reminds me of the very distinguished and experienced solicitor who retired after a successful career. He was pestered to give his advice on what conditions were necessary for a litigant to view his litigation with confidence. He said, "First, you need a good case, and, secondly, good witnesses". "Ah", said his questioner. He went on. Thirdly, you need a good solicitor". Naturally said his questioner. Fourthly, you need a good counsel." Remarked his questioner "I expect so". The solicitor went on, Then, of course, you need a good jury and a good judge". With less enthusiasm, his questioner said, "I understand". But the solicitor added, cheerfully, "If you have all these six essentials all you need after that is good luck".
We are told that an action can be brought in the nature of an action for breach of statutory duty, subject to the defence details which are not available normally in cases of breach of statutory duty. There are not many actions for breach of statutory duty. In my experience, most of them are damages for personal injury caused by a breach of statutory duty. The Government are thus introducing an action for breach of contract as a form of breach of statutory duty.
The court, however, will not say what damages can be awarded. The Clause merely says that the Court may award such appropriate remedy as it thinks fit. This is to leave the matter at large. As one who, had I been in practice still,

would have been called upon to advise the retailer as to his chances and possible remedies and about what the Court might think appropriate, I should probably have said to him, "I have not the faintest idea and nor will learned counsel have. Whatever opinion you get will show no certitude. If you are 'bust ' you might as well sue. If you can carry on without the goods you would be wiser to accept the position."
My right hon. Friend's Amendment says that if the wholesaler does something which the Act says is unlawful—withholds supplies—he may be punitively dealt with in certain circumstances. It would place the onus of proof upon the wholesaler to show that he was withholding supplies for proper reasons. That would be fair enough.
What possible objection can there be to that? He is the man who takes the punitive action against the retailer. He is the man who says, "I am bound by the Act to continuing supplying unless and until I can establish that I am satisfied that there has been a breach of the obligations about loss leaders, and so on".
5.0 p.m.
On every consideration of equity, the man who asserts the wrong is the man who should prove the wrong. The retailer is entitled to supplies so long as he pays on the normal credit terms, and he is entitled to continue to receive supplies unless it is alleged against him that he has committed a breach of statutory duty. If supplies are withheld from the retailer on the basis that he has done something wrong, the man who takes the action is the man who should establish the, facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is some doubt. I am constantly iii error, so I will quote Amendment No. 52:
the burden o f proving that supplies of goods which have been withheld by the supplier from a dealer were withheld because the dealer had acted as described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section or was likely to act as described in paragraph (b) of that subsection in relation to the goods in question shall be upon the party bringing the proceedings".
I accept that there is a dilemma there and that it is said that if the proceedings are being brought by the retailer, he has the burden of proving that the wholesaler withheld supplies wrongly. I do not want to dispute that, in the


main, the retailer has to establish that goods have been withheld. No doubt, as part of his case, he would have to go into the witness box and say, "I did not commit any breach".
However, we are still left with the fact that the wholesaler then has to establish and must establish that there was a reason for committing that breach. There is the real question of proof and the retailer has no possibility of proving the state of the wholesaler's mind. I appreciate that it is said that this is the wrong way round, but the whole proceedings are the wrong way round. The wholesaler commits an act which he claims to be lawful. The retailer says that it is unlawful because the only assumption which permitted the wholesaler to withhold supplies is the allegation that the retailer has broken the terms of the Bill. All the retailer can say is that he has not done so. He does not know and will not be supplied with particulars and will not even know the nature of the allegation against him except by a long procedure of discovery or interrogation, which at once becomes a part of long and detailed proceedings.
But it is on the process of discovery that one is left with a virtually impossible onus. The retailer asks the question. The wholesaler says that his reasons for withholding supplies were—what? As I said earlier, he will probably allege no more than that a cheque was late, or payment was slow. If he has any doubt about the accuracy of the information upon which he acted in the first place, it is extremely unlikely that he will allege that his reasons were the use of loss leaders by the retailer. He will try to establish some breach of ordinary trading conditions, in which he would be perfectly justified in withholding supplies.
He is entitled to say that the retailer was a bad payer and that he was cutting off supplies because he was a bad payer, that his cheque was late, that he was not up to date and that not only did he not pay within the terms of the normal discount provisions, but did not pay until some little time afterwards and that he, the wholesaler, had cause to believe that the retailer was in a semi-solvent condition. In that way the issue is shifted.
At this stage, on whom is the burden of proof? This is where to some extent I part company from my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

Mr. M. Foot: My hon. Friend parted some time ago.

Mr. Hale: That is probably true.
This is where the Bill is completely cock-eyed. There is not imposed on the wholesaler a statutory duty that he should have to seek some legal permission or approval for an act which ruins a man. As the Bill stands, and as it will stand as amended by my hon. Friends, the retailer is forced to bring proceedings, because no proceedings are brought against him. He suffers the injury, he suffers the damage and he suffers the ruin. He is the party bringing the proceedings, because, under the cock-eyed terms of the Bill, he has to seek a remedy in the courts for an injury, a remedy which the courts cannot give, on terms which he cannot establish.
Therefore, it is at the proceedings of interrogatories, the proceedings of ascertainment, that there is left to the wholesaler the right to shift the onus while there is left to the retailer the duty of establishing the issue which has to be established in more than one form. It is not sufficient for the retailer to say that he has not done anything wrong. He has to go further. On whom at this stage is the burden of proof? The Attorney-General would be in some difficulty in dealing with the burden of proof at this stage.
The retailer says, "I should like to establish that I have not committed any breach of the terms of the Act; I have sold no loss leaders; nor have I had any mass discount sales". He then has to establish that the wholesaler acted with that consideration in mind. How is the state of mind established in those circumstances? The wholesaler says that he is prepared to swear that he was not actuated by those considerations.
If we are to deal with this matter at all, we have to provide for the wholesaler to claim to withhold supplies on the ground of a breach of the terms, giving to the retailer at the time fullest details of the breach he has in mind and which he believes to have been committed, or has reasonable cause to believe to have been committed. At this


stage, if the retailer serves a counter notice to say that he has not committed any breach and denies the charge in toto, supplies should not be withheld unless and until the wholesaler has applied for some judicial authority and established his case.
The wholesaler would then be the party bringing the proceedings, as he should be the party bringing the proceedings. As the party bringing the proceedings, he should have the onus of proof of those facts disputed by the retailer firmly placed on his shoulders. I think that this was what the hon. Member for Ormskirk had in mind—he was a little more vague about it than usual and we still have to find out what he expects to be done on Report. At present, I find it difficult to know who is bringing the proceedings at any one stage and on whom the burden of proof rests. The party bringing the proceedings for the purposes of the Bill should be the party taking a step in contravention of the Bill, and that is the wholesaler. That is why I think that under suitable conditions, under the safeguards which I have indicated, the burden should be on the wholesaler to take appropriate measures to inform the retailer and give him a right of reply before a withholding of the goods takes place.

Mr. Graham Page: The person bringing the action is the person who is injured. It is the retailer who has suffered, and it is normal that the person who suffers the damages brings the action. The hon. Gentleman has turned it the other way and is saying that the person who has caused the injury should bring the action.

Mr. Hale: The Clause specifically refers to an injunction. If we are to make an act unlawful, but specify that it can be done lawfully under certain conditions, surely the onus of establishing that there has been a breach of the conditions and justifying a special defence rests on the person who commits the unlawful act? This is assured by the first Amendment.
This is really one of the bases of an action for a breach of statutory duty. It is true that in an action for breach of statutory duty for a personal injury the person who brings the action is the person who has suffered, and he has to establish that he has suffered. He

puts forward evidence to say that in his view what happened constituted a breach of statutory duty, but the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) knows that the standard of judicial interpretation in such matters would be very different from the standard for common law.
The courts have said time and again that if an obligation is imposed by Statute the assumption that there has been a breach of statutory duty is not governed by the same at large conditions. The defence of an action for breach of statutory duty is a much more difficult form of defence because, in fact, in the main, the plaintiff merely has to establish the bare facts of the case and say that they are a breach of statutory duty, and the burden of supporting the consequent legal argument rests, in effect, on the defendant and not on the plaintiff, in spite of the general rule. A special defence imposes an obligation.
There it is. I rose only to reply to the hon. Member for Ormskirk. Of course, we want clarity. Of course, we need clarity. Where is it to come from? The Bill, has now become complex. It will, we are told, be amended again as a result of the discussions that have taken place either upstairs or downstairs—I would have thought downstairs was rather more appropriate in the circumstances. All of us find difficulties in matching up the implications of Clauses 2, 3 and 4.
The Bill has not specified in any way the nature of the remedies which a court can give, and I therefore feel that we are entitled to hear from the Attorney-General how he visualises the proceedings may take place, on whom the onus of proof is to lie, who is to bring them, what are the natures of the defences available, and what are the remedies which it is intended the courts should try to give.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and I think that I understood the story he told about proceedings in court and the condition; that have to be fulfilled. I thought that it was very funny, but I do not think that I followed very fully his argument which, as I understood it, was


in favour of the deletion of subsection (4).
It seems to me that the matter at issue is not one that presents a novel difficulty, nor one that needs any novel remedy. Whenever one tries to look into a man's mind to discover his intentions, one is in a difficulty, be the intention one that has an element in a criminal case, or one that is part of a contract. The Court will have to apply the Bill when it becomes an Act. Courts have rules which have served well through the centuries.
5.15 p.m.
The usual way of getting round this difficulty is the way in which this Bill, by this subsection, attempts to overcome the obstacles placed before it on the burden of proof. The hon. Member for Oldham, West—and I entirely agree with him—said that it would be an overwhelming difficulty and an absurd hardship to make the retailer who will have been injured further offended and exposed to further injury by insisting that he should have placed on his shoulders the burden of proving something which perhaps would not necessarily be something which could be proved by ordinary evidence, namely, an intention in the mind of the wholesaler. Because of that difficulty this subsection puts on the shoulders of the wholesaler the burden of proving what was in the wholesaler's mind in withholding supplies from the retailer.
I suggest that if one looks at it in that light, the matter is comparatively simple. The first stage is that one shows, and has to show, that there has been an attempt by the supplier to impose upon a retailer a measure for the maintaining of retail prices. That is achieved by satisfying the conditions set out in subsection (4). It is done by proving that the supplies of the goods were withheld by the supplier from the dealer.
One then proves, according to subsection (4,a)
that down to the time when supplies were so withheld the supplier was doing business with the dealer or was supplying goods of the same description to other dealers carrying on business in similar circumstances.
Thirdly, one proves
that the dealer, to the knowledge of the supplier had within the previous six months acted as described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section

namely, that he had sold goods below the resale price, or was likely to sell such goods in the future, This is all simplicity. There is no difficulty. Whether one thinks it is just or not, is another matter.
Let us consider the practical difficulties and the ease or the impossibility with which they can be overcome. These are matters which can easily be proved in a court. We then come to the question—and this is the essence of the argument—is it just from that moment onwards that the Crown—or the retailer should be able to sit down as it were in court and say, "I have proved my part of the case"?
As I understand it, the Amendment and those who support it seek to say that it would be wrong for the matter to be left there. The retailer—or the Crown if the Crown is bringing in proceedings—should go further than that. He should prove the intention of the wholesaler in withholding his supplies. I suggest that that would be asking the impossible in many cases.
Furthermore, I submit that it would be wholly unjust to a retailer to insist—as would be the case if the Amendment were accepted—that he should shoulder the burden of satisfying the Court as to what was in the mind of a supplier.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. and learned Member thinks that, he is arguing that if the retailer can merely show that the wholesaler is supplying other dealers, notwithstanding the fact that he, the retailer, had threatened to cut prices, the wholesaler or manufacturer is compelled to supply.

Mr. Gardner: Of course not—because here it is presumed that the wholesaler had done something unlawful unless he proves to the contrary, and this is something that he can well do.

Mr. Winterbottom: What about the case of the new applicant—the one who is applying for goods that he has not had before from a wholesaler? In such a case the wholesaler is completely innocent.

Mr. Gardner: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) says that the wholesaler will be the victim. I see no possibilities of victimisation. The


wholesaler is withholding supplies for one reason or another. There may be many good and justifiable reasons for withholding supplies. A supplier may be nervous about the credit-worthiness of a retailer. There may be many other reasons why he can quite properly say, "I am not prepared to supply this retailer." In that case all that he has to do, as the subsection stands, is to satisfy the court that the reason why he is withholding supplies has nothing to do with resale price maintenance.

Mr. Winterbottom: If the wholesaler has not been supplying goods in the first place he is condemned to go to the Restrictive Practices Court and be committed to an action through no fault of his own. To my mind, that is wrong.

Mr. Gardner: One can always take extreme and eccentric cases, but we still have to face the problem as a practical one, which has to come before the Court and with which it will have to deal. I submit that we are placing a quite intolerable and utterly unjust burden upon a retailer who has already been injured if we try to make him prove, in addition to the elements set out in subsection (4), the intention of the wholesaler.

Mr. Winterbottom: No. The cases that will arise where a retailer will not receive supplies will be infinitesimal. Those cases, on the other hand, which arise quite by accident, because of trouble arising over goods not arriving at the requisite time, will be far more numerous. I can see the dangers. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman does not, but his is the mind of a lawyer; I am talking about the men who work in the shops and who know.

Mr. Gardner: I hope that I can say, in chorus with the majority of hon. Members, that it is our great concern, in debating this and all other aspects of the Bill, to achieve justice, whether or not we are lawyers. It is in the spirit of attempting to arrive at a just solution to these formidable difficulties that all these points are being debated today.
If we are trying to arrive at an equitable solution—and I am sure that that is the ambition of us all, including the right hon. Member for Battersea, North—perhaps it is not unhelpful to look at what the law has done in similar cases,

to see whether it has achieved the justice and equity that we all desire, and to see whether it offers a possible example to follow. We have a good analogy here, in the law of contract. In Clause 2(2) the resale price is described as
any price prescribed or purporting to be prescribed for that purpose by any contract or agreement between the dealer and any such supplier".
For many years the law has been that if, on its face, a contract shows an illegal intention, the onus lies upon the party purporting to support the contract to show the legality of the intention.
We therefore come back to the difficulty of looking into a person's mind and discovering what his intention was. I submit that here we can say, in support of subsection (4) and against the suggestion that it should be deleted, that the situation is very close to that which arises in respect of an illegal contract. Once it has been proved that the wholesaler has done something which appears on the face of it to be unlawful, it must surely be for him to satisfy the Court that what he has done is lawful—because he is the only person who can achieve that.

Mr. M. Foot: I would not have intervened were it not for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Apart from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), my hon. Friend's speech was unique in these proceedings in the sense that it was the first speech from the back benches on either side of the Committee in support of the Government. It was the first occasion on which the Government have had fulsome support from any back bench speaker on either side. I thought that that fact should be recognised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said that we must have clarity, and he asked where it was to come from. I am not sure whether his question was rhetorical, but we ought to try to answer it. I can appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view. He has made it abundantly clear in his previous interventions. This illustrates the whole difficulty of the Bill. There is a great deal to be said for it, and much to be said against it. That is why our proceedings are taking rather a long time.
My hon. Friend is passionately opposed to some operations of resale price maintenance. He thinks that it is bitterly unjust that manufacturers should continue to be allowed to do some things that they have been doing in the past against retailers, and I have some sympathy with that point of view. The Secretary of State also has some sympathy for it—

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: —although his sympathy is rather recent. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but my hon. Friend has indicated the fact quite clearly. That has been the guiding motive of my hon. Friend's approach to the Bill. I can understand his point of view. Therefore, he looks with suspicion at any proposal which will make it easier for manufacturers to continue in the future some of the practices which they have followed in the past.
5.30 p.m.
I would beg my hon. Friend to consider that many of us who are in favour of the abolition of resale price maintenance as a general rule wish to bring it about in a manner which will not inflict injustice on anybody. We think that it could be done in that way and one of our complaints against the Minister throughout the whole of these proceedings has been that he introduced his Bill so hastily and with so little consideration, and, I would add, although I do not want to make any grave charges against him, with such a crude attempt to make it an electioneering possibility, that he never troubled to see how he could make the Bill just.
Therefore, what we on this side of the Committee are doing, and, I think, to give them credit, many hon. Members opposite also are doing, is to try to make the Bill just. There are a few of my hon. Friends who say that that is impossible, and I understand their view, too. However, I do not entirely agree with them.
That being so, we look at each Clause and try to discover how the balance of justice can be weighed. Very often it is an extremely difficult balance. My

complaint against the right hon. Gentleman in the operation of the Bill is that anyone who reads his Second Reading speech will see that he did not realise what were the possible injustices in the Measure. He has had to learn from many quarters that there are injustices involved.
Let us consider this Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend with what I thought was absolute clarity. The purpose of the Amendment—and no one can deny this, I imagine—is to mitigate the severity of the Bill in the interests of those whose position might be injured by the abolition of resale price maintenance. Therefore, it is to turn the balance back a bit in favour of those who might have their position injured by the general purposes of the Bill. That is what our intention is, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would dispute that.
Since we normally find it so easy to find the intentions of the wholesalers we can, perhaps, more easily find the intentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is the purpose of my hon. Friend, to make the Bill more just in that respect. I would have thought, therefore, that every hon. Member opposite who has doubts about the wisdom or the justice of the abolition of resale price maintenance would have supported this Amendment. I do not see how anyone who has genuine doubts about the abolition of resale price maintenance cannot support it. The only explanation why we have had so little support from hon. Gentlemen opposite who are opposed to the abolition of resale price maintenance is that these matters have been fixed in advance. I must say, even in that respect, that the proceedings on the Bill are almost, I do not say absolutely, unprecedented, and that I cannot recall an equal precedent.
I think that it was a wise decision on the part of the Government to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. Owing to the postponement of the General Election we have plenty of time to debate the Bill. Therefore, we can have all the discussions on the Floor. As far as I can recall, almost every day of the Committee proceedings in the House, including the proceedings on this Amendment, have been preceded by discussions between hon. Members opposite, to which, apparently, some of the most eminent among them, such as


the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), were not even invited.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is always the soul of courtesy, would not wish to misrepresent my position. I have never tried to attend.

Mr. Foot: Certainly, I would not be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is very wise. He comes here unmuzzled. That is more than others can say. The hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier was unmuzzled too, but several other hon. Members have, apparently, made a bargain, because if they were really intent on amending the Bill in the interests of justice they would apply their minds to this Amendment as well as, we hope, to some of the later Amendments.
This is a serious constitutional matter. The Secretary of State should explain to the Committee, first, what is his attitude to the different Amendments. The idea that all the Amendments that we should discuss should be settled in private meetings is most disreputable. Indeed, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks later he may be making a complaint that the Leader of the Opposition did not go along with him to the private meetings to help him out.

Mr. Jay: Have we any assurance that the Prime Minister was present, because he appears to have come here this afternoon to find out what is going on?

Mr. Foot: We are very glad to have the Prim: Minister here. We have been told by the newspapers, and it has not been denied—for example, we have the report in The Times today, headed, "Mr. Heath"—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir Robert, for an hon. Member to imply that the Amendments which we discuss in the House of Commons are decided in private consultation when, in fact, they are chosen by the Chair? Is this not a reflection on the Chair?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I do not regard it as a reflection on the Chair for an hon. Member on either side of the Committee to accuse another hon. Member of saying something improper.

Mr. Foot: Thank you, Sir Robert, for your Ruling.
We are discussing an important Amendment to the Bill which would adjust it in favour of those who might be injured by the abolition of resale price maintenance. I was arguing the fact that those hon. Members opposite who have indicated their fierce opposition to the Bill have, apparently, withdrawn their support for this Amendment and have not even attempted to participate in the debate. I was setting that fact alongside the published fact that these meetilgs have been taking place between the Secretary of State in charge of the Bill and a selected group of back benchers, and have been taking place on an unprecedented scale.
The right hon. Gentleman laughs, as if this is an inconsiderable matter, but if this precedent is followed it will mean that instead of Committee proceedings on the Floor of the House divulging to the nation what are the full issues involved, and, after all, that is the purpose of public discussion in the House, we are to have bargains fixed beforehand to settle which Amendments are to be accepted by the Government and which are not.
There are some hon. Members opposite who know which Amendments the Government will accept and some do not. On this side of the Committee none of us knows which Amendments the Government will accept and which they are not. This affects the matter. Apparently, some of the erstwhile rebels opposite have mitigated their rebellion because they know which later Amendments the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot get on to the subject of later Amendments now. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that I have ever strayed. from the rules of order, Sir Robert. It is a matter of grave consideration for the Committee that the discussion of this Amendment should be prejudiced by the kind of discussions in which the right hon. Gentleman has been willing to enter throughout the whole proceedings on the Bill.
We know perfectly well why he has done so. We know that if he had not had these private discussions, the right hon. Gentleman might be in danger of seeing the Government defeated again. That might happen again—we never know. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman last week during the Budget debate—in which he referred directly to the Bill—indicated how much up against the ropes he was. He appealed to the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman takes a most curious constitutional view of this matter. He looks on his own back benchers as the dragon, and on himself as the maiden and on the Leader of the Opposition as a kind of reluctant, ungallant, delinquent St. George.
The right hon. Gentleman should understand that it is not the business of the Leader of the Opposition to come to the rescue of Ministers in distress. What is the Minister complaining about? He has us to help him—he has got me; does he want the rest of us too? We are doing our best for the right hon. Gentleman.
I hope that when he replies the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what commitments, if any, he has made to his hon. Friends about this Amendment and, if possible, on future Amendments. But let the right hon. Gentleman not take refuge, as was immediately his first thought, behind the rulings of the Chair. I am sure that if he wanted to tell us what commitments he has made to his back benchers, an opportunity could be found for him to do so. If he does not tell us today, he could do so when we move to report Progress. That would be a good moment for the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what he told to his nondescript group of back benchers yesterday.
I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that this is not a small issue. If once we get a situation where a Minister will discuss detailed Amendments in advance with groups of back benchers, and will make undertakings and agreements about them, we shall destroy the authority of the House of Commons.
When a Labour Government were in power I cannot recall that on a single

occasion detailed Amendments were discussed in private either in Standing Committees or in this Chamber. That, had it happened, would have been most improper. In the days of that Government I remember that when Amendments were moved on matters of critical importance, such as the period of conscription, no commitments were made outside the House of Commons. They were discussed here and the Minister defended them here. This Secretary of State comes to a debate, knowing that he has secured some of his back benchers—or, at any rate, he thinks he has—and, therefore, the only element of surprise left in the House of Commons is whether he has made as big an underestimate of the strength of the opposition to him on this occasion as on a previous occasion. I admit, that the element of surprise is not removed.
The right hon. Gentleman has made many miscalculations about the Bill and it may be that the rebels opposite will recover their nerve. I hope that they will. I have been thinking of offering to give them tutorial classes on Friday afternoons. I hope that they will stick to their guns and fight for the cause in which they believe, and that they will not be seduced by the right hon. Gentleman.
Above all, I hope that the rebels on the benches opposite will not try to deceive their followers in the country by saying that they have abstracted so much from the right hon. Gentleman. We have seen reports in the newspapers. We saw in The Times that the Minister stands firm. If it is true, the rebels should come out of their holes and fight once again. The trouble is, so far as we can gather, that the right hon. Gentleman has conceded nothing. All that the rebels have now is a miserable lot of crumbs of concessions—

5.45 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a long way from the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: It was the absence of these rebels which persuaded me, Sir Robert, against my will, to speak up on their behalf. But I will not pursue the matter further
I hope that those rebels who receive those miserable crumbs of concession


will not go round licking their lips as though they had enjoyed a Bacchanalian feast, because that would not do. They have to go hungry and look bloated, and that is a most irritating assignment. I hope that they will be relieved from it. I hope that they will support us over this Amendment, because whatever else it does it is designed to readjust the balance in favour of those who might be unjustly affected by the abolition of resale price maintenance. I do not see how anyone who has hitherto opposed the Government can fail to support this Amendment.
As for those who have said that we can deal with the matter in some other way—the hon. Member for Ormskirk spoke on our Amendment and took the opportunity to say that he would like the Government to support a different Amendment and to introduce it at some stage.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that the hon. Member wishes to be fair. During the discussion on Clause 2 my right hon. Friend did say that he would do that. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and myself so, because we had made this representation to him.

Mr. Foot: But he has not done it yet. The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to put down an Amendment. I do not say that it is unprecedented—it is not done frequently—but the right hon. Gentleman has introduced quite big Amendments into the Bill under pressure from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Ormskirk has not exerted his power to the full. He should have some power. He is the only back bencher who dared to speak on behalf of the Government a few weeks ago, and if the Government lose him where are they? What will they have left? They will be left with the P.P.S.s.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk has a considerable opportunity. At any rate, he has this advantage. He could say to the Government, "I should like an Amendment covering the very important point about credit facilities which was mentioned earlier". I think that it is an important point, and it would be a further addition to making the Bill a little more just as some would say, or a little less unjust, as others would say.

If the hon Gentleman wants such an Amendment and if he does not think that the Government will introduce it, he could put down an Amendment himself, and some of us would be willing to sign it so that he would not withdraw it later.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk has missed his opportunity. He will not have to do so on Report. We shall all watch carefully whether the Government put down an Amendment which he has proposed, and if not, whether the hon. Gentleman puts it down. We shall also watch carefully how the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues vote when that Amendment is discussed, and if it needs to be voted upon, because we, no doubt, should support it—if the Government put down such an Amendment.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee propose Amendments of this nature which are designed to make a bad Bill a bit better, or a good Bill a little better still—if people prefer to put it that way While doing that we also want to restore the debate on this issue to the House of Commons, and away from the hole and corner basis where, hitherto, the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to settle these matters. We are not content that the affairs of the nation should be settled in back rooms.

Mr. Health: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I am grateful, Sir Robert, for being allowed to catch your eye and to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I do not wish to detain the Committee for very long.
I feel very strongly about some of the arguments which have been advanced this afternoon. We have had an amusing knock-about turn from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), but I do not think that he added much to the argument. I find myself in the rare and happy position, for once, of being—I think that it is almost the first occasion—in very substantial agreement with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
I have felt throughout the debate that the manufacturers have got away with


murder by hiding behind the skirts of the shopkeepers on whom sentiment, propaganda and everything else has been poured out. It is the manufacturer who fixes the prices. He works out his production and other costs and decides his wholesale price and thereafter fixes the resale price, about which the shopkeeper has no say whatever.
If, as I have consistently believed, with the exceptions by which certain trades and industries, on a reasonable and fair margin, may prove to qualify for exemption, overall I have unfailingly supported my right hon. Friend during the whole last three months on the proposals outlined in the Bill for overall abolition of resale price maintenance. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, I should say that I was not at the meeting last night, so I do not know what opinions may or may not have been voiced on the Amendments. But to suggest that all these Amendments could be put on the Notice Paper without there being the normal consultation between party hon. Members, would be to live in the realms of fantasy.

Mr. M. Foot: Of course, I was not suggesting hon. Members should not consult one another, but what I think is injurious to the House of Commons is that the Minister in charge of the Bill should tell groups of back benchers which Amendments he is prepared to accept and which he is not prepared to accept.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I doubt whether he has done that. As an ordinary back bencher I am ignorant of any such plot.
I go to the point about the onus of proof being either on the manufacturer or on the shopkeeper. I am not unduly worried about Woolworth's, Sainsbury's, Tesco, or one of the giants. They can battle with the manufacturer. They can afford to have the best legal advice and to carry their case through the courts but it seems quite outrageous if this is applied, not to the big shops, but to the small shopkeepers. It is monstrous that the onus of proof should be put on the hundreds of thousands of little shops rather than on one of the giant detergent companies or great manufacturers in some other spheres.

Mr. Winterbottom: Will the hon. Lady distinguish between the giant manufacturers and the people who actually supply the small shops, little wholesalers? They are not big business people, but ordinary wholesalers supplying, in the main, at the most, 20 or 30 shops. That is the principal supply to the ordinary small shops of the country and it is quite divorced from anything the hon. Lady is talking about.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member can go round any shop he chooses, but he must not try to tell me that its shelves are stocked generally from small wholesalers. There are small wholesalers providing certain types of goods, but overall the proportion of small wholesalers is smaller than the proportion of small shopkeepers. The small shopkeeper is put into a position where he has to carry forward his case against the manufacturer and the supplier.
If there were so much strength and power among the shopkeepers and retailers in bringing cases against restrictions imposed by manufacturers and wholesalers generally, we should not have needed all the machinery of the Monopolies Commission. That shows how powerless the small retailer has been because only as a result of the most intensive investigations by the Monopolies Commission procedure has there been any strength or power provided to deal with victimisation of shopkeepers.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: They have not been dealt with.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member's hon. Friend is now suggesting that the shopkeeper has to take on the giant.

Mr. Winterbottom: No.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The shopkeeper has to take on the supplier and to bear the onus of proof.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The shopkeeper does not have to do that, because under subsection (3) the Crown can do it. That is the whole point about having subsection (3) in the Bill.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The Crown will have a busy time in that case, but my hon. Friend's interpretation is


not the interpretation put on the Amendment by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Mr. Jay: I said the wholesaler, the retailer, or the Crown. The Bill as it stands would not put the onus of proof simply on a large manufacturer or wholesaler who was large or small. There are quite a lot of small manufacturers and small wholesalers and we have to be fair to all of them.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: That is splitting hairs. It is grossly unfair to the shopkeeper. The onus of proof should be on the wholesaler or the manufacturer and not generally on the smaller unit, the small shopkeeper. To say that it can be put on the Crown, when we consider the great multiplicity of shopkeepers, is only begging the question. I feel very strongly about the onus of proof being put on the shopkeeper, and I support my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that a case must be made for Clause 4, and, of course, I accept that. The Amendment with which we are dealing concerns subsection (4), which contains the provisions regarding the burden of proof in proceedings against a supplier for withholding supplies under Clause 2. The Committee will recall that when we were dealing with Clause 2 we had a very long discussion about many points arising out of it, some of which concerned Clause 4. There is, therefore, a close relationship between these two Clauses and it is natural that the discussion in Committee has dealt with these points together.
I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said. It seemed that his main thesis was that the chance of successful litigation in the modern world was entirely nil. I am glad to see that the hon. Member agrees. He seemed to suggest that on the whole it would be very much better if we did not have legislation. I think many hon. Members who have been following the Bill for some time will agree.
We shall not argue about that thesis, because the hon. Member then turned his mind to the particular point at issue

and accepted that we may have to have legislation and may have to have litigation and asked what we should do about it. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) was right when he said that his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West came to my aid and supported the Bill, but that happened because he picked up the Notice Paper and read Amendment No. 52 in the belief that that was in the Bill, and promptly decided to attack it. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hale: All this is good clean fun and I would not for a moment criticise the selection by the Chair, but I hope the Secretary of State will do me the justice to remember that we are discussing three separate Amendments and that the first is to leave out subsection (4). It is our duty to discuss these Amendments. The deletion of subsection (4) would take away any defence and the onus of proof would be left at large. In that, I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North in toto.
In the third Amendment the onus of proof would be shifted almost in toto to the retailer. I suggested that, the retailer having discharged the burden of proof that there had been withholding and the burden of proof of damage, my right hon. Friend was possibly going too far in asking the retailer to bear the burden of trying to establish what was in the retailer's mind.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Heath: At that point the hon. Gentleman showed himself entirely in agreement with what is in the Bill, and I am glad that he has repeated it.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale emphasised that what we needed to obtain was justice, and I fully accept that. He went on to say that this is always a very difficult balance and I agree with him. I said exactly the same thing when we were dealing with loss leadering—that the reason we wanted certain provisions in the Bill was to act as an effective deterrent and to secure justice.
The hon. Member has discussed many people's intentions. Many of us on this side of the Committee would respect his intentions to secure justice rather more if he did not mix them to such a large degree with some of the rather cruder


forms of political engineering and manœuvring into which he has been tempted so often during the Committee stage and in which he has indulged to no mean effect. It is all good clean fun. When he said that he regarded my remarks to the Leader of the Opposition—about his behaviour being the most reprehensible and contemptible of any modern Leaders of the Opposition—as an appeal to him, I did not understand him.
I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of inconsistency on the Finance Bill. All I was saying was that so hungry is he for power that he has not the political courage to stand up and say exactly what his position is on the Bill. That is not an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to come to our aid; it is merely a request that he should tell the country exactly what he thinks.

Mr. M. Foot: But the right hon. Gentleman went further than that. What he asked the Leader of the Opposition to do was to hold his hand.

Mr. Heath: That was a very weak reply. Seldom have I seen the hon. Member have to work so hard to make his point as he has worked today. He started on the Bill with a rapier, and we all admired him, but it has become a bludgeon in a rather crude form and rather boring to the rest of us.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North spoke a great deal about suppliers being forced to supply against their will. In Clauses 2 and 4 we are dealing with the position of the supplier not being allowed to withhold on the ground that the goods are being sold below the recommended price. This point often seems to have been confused in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, for he believes that this means that he cannot withhold on any other ground.
Let us be clear: that is not the position. We are dealing with withholding on the ground that the article was sold below the recommended price. We are dealing only with that point. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment does not tackle the problem of a man having to sell to someone who is selling below the recommended price. He made many remarks about people

selling against their will, but this is in no way affected by his Amendment. All his Amendment does is to alter the onus of proof in the procedure. Let us be quite clear that this is the point with which we are dealing in the debate and in the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I said that myself. That shows how very moderate our Amendment is.

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman said that clearly, then all the other irrelevancies were unnecessary. and without them he would have confused the issue less. He is dealing only with the point about the onus of proof and his Amendment will in no way change the other matters.

Mr. Jay: They are not irrelevancies. If there is something inherently undesirable in compelling somebody to trade against his will, there is a case for doing it as seldom as possible.

Mr. Heath: I should have thought that if it were inherently undesirable, the right hon. Gentleman would have put down an Amendment to alter the whole thing. But I will accept what he says and deal with the point under consideration.

Mr. Winterbottom: The assumption, we are told, is that this Clause starts with the principle that low prices in terms of resale price maintenance have to be taken into consideration. If that is so, why is it specifically mentioned in the two Clauses? I quote from the Clause:
…it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the supplies were withheld on the ground that the dealer had so acted or was likely so to act.
Thus, prior to the definition, the conception that a lowering of prices had applied is not strictly accurate. If this is deleted the onus of proof is changed away from the wholesaler, but it is changed only in so far as we come to the last part of the Clause.

Mr. Heath: Yes, the onus is changed in that respect because the onus of the first three points, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) referred, is placed on the person bringing the action, which is the retailer or the retail association presumably backing him, or the Crown. I agree with that point.
There were two other points which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in which he said that the onus fell doubly on the supplier. It is true that from the point of view of the procedure for exemption, the onus is there to be placed, and I will deal with it, but it is in no way connected with this onus. It is, therefore, distracting to say that there is a double onus, because it is only one onus which exists in connection with this procedure.
We want to be clear about this. The right hon. Gentleman said that the supplier had to prove a negative. I do not agree, because what the supplier does is to show the positive reason why he took this action and to show that it was not a reduction in the recommended price which led to it. He has every opportunity to do that, and it is, therefore, a positive thing which he has to do; he must show that there was a good reason for his action and that his reason was not a cut in the recommended price. I could in no way accept that this procedure provides any sort of precedent for location of industry or anything even more closely connected than that subject.
What the Amendment does, therefore, is to leave the entire onus on the plaintiff—the dealer who is affected or the Crown. This means that he would have to prove affirmatively that the supplier had withheld supplies on the ground that the dealer was selling or was likely to sell below the recommended price.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay clearly pointed out, in the procedure under the Bill there are three things which have to be shown before the onus falls on the supplier, and they are set out in subsection (4): that the supplies were withheld from the supplier; that
the supplier was doing business with the dealer or was supplying goods of the same description to other dealers carrying on business in similar circumstances";
and, thirdly,
that the dealer, to the knowledge of the supplier had within the previous six months acted as described in paragraph (a) of subsection (1).
The procedure is that these three things have to be shown first of all by the retailer or by the Crown, and the onus is on them to show them. That is the first part of the proceedings.

Mr. Jay: In the normal case those three things are scarcely in dispute. The onus of proof is not very substantial.

Mr. Heath: They may or may not be in dispute, but the responsibility for showing them rests with the person bringing the action, which we believe to be right. It is after this that the supplier has the onus placed upon him of taking action. If we adopted the Amendment, the plaintiff would have to prove in all cases—not only in cases of withholding; supplies but in cases of supply on significantly less favourable terms—why the supplier had been withholding supplies. We believe that this would crease very considerable difficulties in enforcing the prohibition.
This is where the question of justice comes in, because what we require to do is to prevent the withholding being used as a means of enforcing resale price maintenance. This is where the justice of the operation comes in, which was the point to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West called the attention of the Committee, because—here I agree very much with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Billericay and some others who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—it would be extremely difficult for anyone to show or to prove why a supplier had withheld supplies from a dealer.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West illustrated clearly that one would require all the processes of discovery, and so on, to make an attempt to do this. He said, rightly, that he believed that it would be wrong to try to use those procedures in this case and that it would not be justifiable. On that, I agree with him that it is not right to use all the processes of discovery, and so on, in this case, because I do not believe that there can be anything unreasonable in placing the onus on the supplier, as we do in this subsection, because nobody is in a better position to know why he has withheld supplies than the supplier. Therefore, in appearing in Court in the second half of the procedure he can give the reasons why he has withheld supplies.
As several hon. Members have said, there can be very many good reasons for doing this. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom)


pointed out that there might be a shortage of stocks. What could be a sounder reason for withholding supplies than a shortage of stocks or produce? I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he starts to deal with the procedure which would be followed, because the first thing, obviously, would be that the supplier would give this reason to the retailer or to the wholesaler, and the dealer has to weigh up in that case whether he wants to bring an action or ask the Crown to bring an action.
There are many good reasons why a supplier should withhold supplies, and he is perfectly entitled to use these and to give them as the reasons, if they are genuine. It is for the Court to judge. But no one is in a better position to know this than the supplier himself, and it is for that reason that we believe that the onus should remain where it is in respect of this paragraph, though there are certain points which have been raised which I want to deal with in a few moments.

Mr. Hale: I did not say that the process of discoveries and interrogatories should not apply. It will undoubtedly apply. It is inevitable. I said that, if one has to indulge in litigation which involves that long process, the retailer may very well be out of action and unable effectively to pursue his remedy because of the length of time involved. If the wholesaler, for instance, acts upon a notice he has received from the wholesalers' association, one would have to go to discovery to produce that. If he pleads that he did not withhold because of an alleged breach, one would have to go to interrogatories, perhaps, to ascertain that.
I concede that this is a very difficult point. There are arguments on both sides. Personally, I agree with the first Amendment as it stands, to leave it to the ordinary processes of the law. I have expressed a little doubt about the second Amendment, because I think that it goes just too far in one point on the onus of proof. Could not the whole thing be met on Report by the introduction of a Clause providing that, if the wholesaler ceases to supply someone whom he has supplied regularly, he should state his reasons in writing at the time? If he states the wrong reasons,

he is still open to the possibility of litigation, but in the ordinary commercial course it would mean that, at any rate, the fact is clear to start with; the retailer knows where he stands and knows why the wholesaler says he stands there.

Mr. Heath: I am certain that in the normal relations between suppliers—wholesalers and retailers, and so on—there would be an explanation of what the reasons are for action which has been taken. That is bound to happen, and I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in any way on that.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the length of time and his question as to how the retailer will bring the action, I am told that it would be possible to obtain an interim injunction. I have no doubt that, if a retailer wants to bring an action, he can have the advice of his retail association or indeed, as the Bill provides, he can come to the Board of Trade and the Crown can itself take action. In effect, those matters are covered.
6.15 p.m.
I am advised on this aspect of the subsection that it is an accepted principle of the law of evidence that the burden of proving a fact which is peculiarly within the knowledge of a person should lie on that person. Indeed, this was the principle which the hon. Member for Oldham, West himself supported. This subsection is based on that principle. I believe that the way in which the subsection is framed—namely, that the retailer or the Crown has first to show these three things. and then the supplier is required to show the reason why he did this—is the best balance we can get over the whole field from the point of view of justice.
There is one point with which I want to deal in this respect. It was the point brought up in our long debate on Clause 2. It is the point about supplying for credit and for cash. It was mentioned, and strongly emphasised, by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby in the original debate, by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), who are both not here, and by the hon. Member for Brightside. All those hon. Members pressed upon me that


I should reconsider this aspect of Clauses 2 and 4. I then gave an undertaking to the Committee that I would reconsider this and consider what action could be taken about it, because I believed that we were trying to secure the same objective.
I remember that I set out at the time that the objective was to ensure that the general arrangements for trading were not interfered with by these Clauses and indeed that it was an attempt to secure justice, for which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has asked. I have given careful consideration to the points which were raised during the debate on Clause 2. I think that a powerful case was then made out in Committee.
I believe that my task as the Minister in charge of the Bill is to justify to the Committee and to the House of Commons the Bill itself and the steps we take to amend it. That is a task which I shall always do my best to carry out. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale can be quite assured of that. It is here in Committee or in the House of Commons on later stages that the decisions are taken, and rightly so.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, with all his historical knowledge, must have an extraordinary interpretation of parliamentary history if he imagines that these things are never discussed outside the Chamber by Members, whatever their parties or whatever their groups. My task is to justify to the Committee what I propose to do, or what the Government propose to do, and what is in the Bill. This is a task which I shall always endeavour to carry out.

Mr. M. Foot: I think that the detailed discussions by a member of the Government with his own back benchers of the Clauses in a Bill and which Amendments he proposes to accept are unconstitutional. These are very different from general discussions of a general nature.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is presuming on his knowledge of what discussions have taken place between any Members or Ministers. He must be living in an ivory tower if he believes that during the processes of a Bill these matters are not discussed with a large number of people who are concerned about the nature of a Bill, once it has

been published. Indeed, it is absolutely right—there is nothing unconstitutional about it—that those affected by the Bill, if they wish to make representations, should do so, and that Ministers and hon. Members generally should listen to them.

Mr. M. Foot: I quote to the right hon. Gentleman the report in The Times today on this matter. It says what I said to the Committee. The report, by that newspaper's political correspondent, says that the right hon. Gentleman—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Can a Member of the House be held responsible for anything in The Times?

The Chairman: There is nothing disorderly in an hon. Member reading out a quotation from a newspaper.

Mr. M. Foot: Thank you, Sir William.
The report in The Times, to which I have already referred, has the headline:
Mr. Heath Stands Firm on Prices.
I will not lead the whole report. I will make it as succinct as possible. These words appear in the report:
He appears to be prepared to accept only minor changes which will not affect the main principle of the Bill and others relating to the sale of drugs.
That is the interpretation of what happened at the meeting between the right hon. Gentleman and his back benchers. Many of the other newspapers have also stated that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept any substantial Amendments to the Bill and that he has made his refusal clear to his back benchers. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those reports are correct'' I say that it is quite improper for the right hon. Gentleman to have entered into as detailed discussions with his back benchers on this issue, as he obviously has from the reports in the Press.

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of reading my Second Reading speech again, he will see that I told the House exactly what The Times has reported there that I said: that we were not prepared to alter the principles of the Bill, but that I would do everything else to make the Bill as workable, as practicable and as good a Bill as possible, Great as is my admiration for


the political correspondent of The Times, I must point out that, considering that speech, that part of his article does not show great political prescience.
I want now to deal with the credit and cash aspect, because very powerful arguments were very strongly put forward on both sides on this matter. The point was made that a supplier should never be assumed to have withheld supplies in breach of Clause 2 merely because he had refused to grant credit to a dealer. Here, again, it is a question of the balance. What has obviously worried many hon. Members is that dealers, and particularly new dealers, might be able to bring undue pressure on the supplier in the case of payment by credit or by cash, and that it therefore would be unfair to a supplier in having him taken to Court, with all the expense, and so on, involved.
I feel that this is a point that ought to be met. I said that I would do my best to meet it when I listened to the end of the debate on Clause 2. I will therefore, at a later stage, table an Amendment to deal with it. The Amendment will make it clear that a supplier will be able to offer what credit terms he chooses, or to insist on cash, without his running the danger of the threat of legal proceedings in which the burden of proving his motives would be on him, so that, on this particular aspect of credit and cash, the burden of the proof would be changed over—

Mr. Jay: This question of credit is very important, but why does the right hon. Gentleman make a distinction between this reason and other perfectly bona fide reasons from withholding supplies, such as that a manufacturer might withhold supplies because he did not think that the dealer was reputable, or that he had not sufficient supplies to let the dealer have any? Why should the man be put in a different legal position in this particular case?

Mr. Heath: Because of the points made by hon. Members, I believe that in those cases the supplier in Court can show positive alternative reasons why he withheld supplies. The reasons are in his mind, it is he who can best do it, and it is very difficult for a retailer to prove what is in the supplier's mind. It

is, therefore, very possible for the supplier to do it. In cash and credit transactions the balance is different, because I believe that the retailer can take the man to court much more easily.
Those have been the fears expressed on both sides—

Mr. Jay: Why?

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to the debate on Clause 2, I am sorry, but those points were made very forcibly and very fully, among others by the hon. Member for Brightside, who has just left his place. I believe that this is so, and that, on this particularly important aspect, dealers would be able to bring unjust pressure, perhaps, on suppliers in this case, when it is much more difficult for the supplier to prove his position.
I therefore believe that it is right on this aspect to table an Amendment. I believe that it would be wrong to accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which completely switches the position in all other cases. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, and say that I will, on Report, put down an Amendment to deal with cash and credit arrangements.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The object of our Amendment is to get the burden of proof fairly adjusted, and in referring to the Amendment that he has said will be put down on Report the Secretary of State has really admitted the principle upon which we have based our present arguments. In the proposal he tells us he will make, he is, beyond question acknowledging the imperfection of this subsection as it stood.
The right hon. Gentleman proposes special treatment in the case of a supplier withholding goods where the ground for so withholding is that the supplier has reason for not wanting to give credit to a particular dealer. I follow that, but I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can discover a compendious and logical answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay): how can he differentiate what may be a good reason for withholding goods from a dealer from a whole lot of


other equally good reasons for so doing? That is the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty, and I do not see how he can escape from that dilemma.
During the course of the arguments on this Amendment I paid particular attention to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner), who laid great stress, as have other hon. Members, on the point that in such a matter it is quite necessary that a substantial burden of proof must in the ordinary way be discharged by the plaintiff. The hon. and learned Gentleman then argued that at a certain stage it was unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to go further, and appropriate that the matter should, if I may so express myself, be explained to the court by the defendant.
I want to put our argument for the Amendment absolutely fairly, as far as I can. In considering the fairness of treatment as between dealer and supplier, I quite acknowledge that under the machinery proposed by the Bill a considerable burden of proof is placed on the plaintiff. It is right in principle that it should be so, but I acknowledge that it is so, and it may be worth recapitulating to the Committee what the plaintiff has to prove.
The plaintiff has to prove a good deal. As I understand, he first has to prove that he tried to get the goods. Secondly, he must prove that there has been a withholding of the goods. He then has to go on to satisfy the Court that the supplier was doing business in the goods up to the time of the withholding. In addition to all that, the dealer has to establish that the supplier had knowledge that he, the dealer, had either sold a t a price lower than that stated or had revealed an intention so to do.
The object of our Amendment is to meet a difficulty that we think arises when that point has been reached and all these things have been proved by the plaintiff. We still think that the Bill as it stands imposes what may in certain circumstances be an unreasonable burden of proof on the supplier, and perhaps I can best illustrate what is in my mind by reference to a particular class of case, which is not far-fetched and which may quite reasonably and naturally take place in the ordinary course of business affairs.
Let us suppose that when the point has been reached at which the plaintiff has proved these matters, and proved them at the end of his case to full satisfaction, a defendant supplier—after the plaintiff has completed his case—says, "I withheld the goods". He admits the withholding. He admits that the likelihood of the retailer selling below the price was a factor in his decision, but then says, "But that was not the only factor—there were other factors." He may, for example, bring forward as another factor the history of his relations with the dealer and the circumstance that the dealer has in the past proved to be, perhaps, a dilatory payer or has defaulted or behaved unsatisfactorily in a previous transaction with him.
6.30 p.m.
What we say and what, we argue, would be the effect of our Amendment is that in that set of circumstances, which, I repeat, is not far-fetched, there should not be any presumption to hinder, obstruct or channel the determination which the court will come to upon what, on this hypothesis, is the important thing which, among several factors, weighed in the mind of the supplier and was the paramount or governing factor.
An important consequence of our Amendment is that in the kind of situation which I have put forward, the Court would not be circumscribed in the way in which he Bill circumscribes it. In weighing the relevant significance of different factors in the supplier's mind, the Court would come to its conclusion upon their relative significance in the event that occurred unencumbered by any factors of presumption or burden of proof. I ask the Committee to agree that this is; desirable and would be an improvement. This is what we want.
Once the plaintiff has completed his case, if he has succeeded in proving the matters contained in the four heads to which I have earlier referred, the desirable position is surely that the defendant should have the opportunity of coming forward and giving some other reason than that of selling below the resale price for withholding the goods. It should then be open to the Court to consider what may, on the evidence, amount to a considerable


number of factors operating in the supplier's mind and, upon the evidence, to come to a decision as to which was the effective one unencumbered by presumptions written into the Bill to govern the situation.
The Court should have the unencumbered power to infer from the evidence which it has heard from the plaintiff—and, on my hypothesis, also from the defendant—what was the paramount ground for the withholding of supplies by the supplier. The Bill puts upon the supplier the burden of showing affirmatively that the paramount ground for the withholding was, in the case which I have just put, the difficulty that arose in an earlier transaction. This, we say, should not be an offence. In certain cases, it would put too heavy a burden unfairly upon the supplier.
I support the view expressed by my right hon. Friend that on this whole issue the supplier or the manufacturer may, in a great many cases, be a small man, whereas, by the same token, the retailer might be a powerful body. Therefore, considerations of prejudice on this point which were voiced by the other side of the Committee should not be given undue weight.

In this rather interesting point, the right way to deal with the matter is, first. to provide in the Bill for the plaintiff to prove his case up to the point that the Bill provides, because up to that stage the Bill acts rightly and fairly. Then, provision should be made that the defendant can put forward the ground which, he says, was the operative ground in his mind when he decided to withhold the goods. When these two matters are before the Court, the Court should have, in the context of all the evidence that it has heard, the power and the discretion to conclude without any presumption what was, upon the evidence, the paramount effective ground of the supplier for withholding the supply of goods.

That is our view. We are convinced that the argument is a serious and substantial one. We believe that our Amendment would improve the Bill in an important respect. Having heard the arguments on both sides, I am sure that it will be the wish of my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee upon this issue.

Question put,That the words proposed to be left out to "or", in line 16, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 263, Noes 199.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[6.36 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allason, James
Campbell, Gordon
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Farr, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cary, Sir Robert
Fell, Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
Channon, H. P. G.
Finlay, Graeme


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Chataway, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel


Balniel, Lord
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Barlow, Sir John
Cleaver, Leonard
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barter, John
Cooke, Robert
Freeth, Denzil


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cooper, A. E.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Berkeley, Humphry
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gammans, Lady


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gardner, Edward


Bidgood, John C.
Corfield, F. V.
Gibson-Watt, David


Biffen, John
Coulson, Michael
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Biggs-Davison, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bingham, R. M.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glover, Sir Douglas


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.


Black, Sir Cyril
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Goodhew, Victor


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Curran, Charles
Gower, Raymond


Bourne-Arton, A.
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bowlen, Boderic (Cardigan)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Green, Alan


Box, Donald
Dance, James
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grosvenor, Lord Robert


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gurden, Harold


Braine, Bernard
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brewis, John
Doughty, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Du Cann, Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buck, Antony
Eden, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bullard, Denys
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hay, John




Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin
Roots, William


Heath, Rt. Hon, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Hendry, Forbes
Maitland, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hiley, Joseph
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Sharples, Richard


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Shaw, M.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Marten, Neil
Shepherd, William


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hocking, Philip N.
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Holland, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hollingworth, John
Mawby, Ray
Speir, Rupert


Holt, Arthur
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stainton, Keith


Hooson, H. E.
Mills, Stratton
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, J. A.


Hopkins, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hornby, H. P.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Morgan, William
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morrison, John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hughes-Young, Michael
Molt-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Teeling, Sir William


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Temple, John M.


James, David
Noble, Rt. Hon Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kerans, Cmdr. J. S.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kirk, Peter
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Turner, Colin


Kitson, Timothy
Partridge, E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lagden, Godfrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lambton, Viscount
Percival, Ian
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Leavey, J, A.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Vickers, Miss Joan


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wade, Donald


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pitman, Sir James
Walker, Peter


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wall, Patrick


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Pounder, Rafton
Ward, Dame Irene


Litchfield, Capt. John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Whitelaw, William


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Longbottom, Charles
Pym, Francis
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Loveys, Walter H.
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lubbock, Eric
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Hugh (Swanson, W.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


McLaren, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Woollam, John


McLean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs
Ridsdale, Julian



McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMaster, Stanley R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Mr. Batsford and Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)





NOES


Abse, Lee
Callaghan, James
Evans, Albert


Ainsley, William
Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, E.


Albu, Austen
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Finch, Harold


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, Donald
Fitch, Alan


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collick, Percy
Foley, Maurice


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forman, J. C.


Barnett, Guy
Crosland, Anthony
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer


Beaney, Alan
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmarthn)


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Darling, George
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gourtay, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blyton, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)


Boardman, H.
Deer, George
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Delargy, Hugh
Gunter, Ray


Bowles, Frank
Dempsey, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Boyden, James
Diamond, John
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dodds, Norman
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Doig, peter
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Driberg, Tom
Hayman, F. H.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Healey, Denis


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)







Hilton, A. V.
Marsh, Richard
Short, Edward


Holman, Percy
Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Houghton, Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Skeffington, Arthur


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Howie, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hoy, James H.
Monslow, Walter
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, A. E.
Moyle, Arthur
Steele, Thomas


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.
Stones, William


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Makey, B. K.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Owen, Will
Swain, Thomas


Jeger, George
Padley, W. E.
Symonds, J. B.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taverne, D.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paton, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Timmons, John


Lawson, George
Popplewett, Ernest
Wainwright, Edwin


Ledger, Ron
Prentice, R. E.
Warbey, William


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pursey, cmdr. Harry
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, L. M, (Ardwick)
Randall, Harry
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John
Whitlock, William


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Redhead, E. C.
Wigg, George


McBride, N.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S)
Wilkins, W. A.


McCann, J.
Reid, William
Willley, Frederick


MacColl, James
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


McInnes, James
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wood burn, Rt. Hon. A.


McLeavy, Frank
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wyaft, Woodrow


Mahon, Simon
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Manuel, Archie
Ross, William



Mapp, Charles
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. Grey.

Mr. Alan Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 4, line 16, to leave out from "dealer" to end of line 18.
The suppliers of goods, whether wholesalers or manufacturers, may reasonably wish to exercise a choice of retail outlets for their goods, as in the case of an agency, or to limit the number of such outlets within a particular area or district. The Bill leaves the freedom of the suppliers in these respects unfettered where dealers are not price-cutters, but by reason of the provisions in Clause 4(4,a) if a supplier were to refuse a price cutter he would be exposed to a serious risk of legal proceedings in which he would have to prove that he had not withheld supplies on the ground of actual or anticipated price cutting. Such a provision is likely to constrain a supplier from refusing a price cutter even where he would have refused in similar circumstances a dealer who did not cut his prices. This may well be held to put a premium on price cutting.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a ques-

tion about subsection (4,a) and the reason for its inclusion in the Clause. I can understand why the plaintiff in an action, before the onus shifts, should be required to prove that supplies of goods have been withheld and possibly that before they were withheld the supplier had been doing business with the dealer. It is reasonable that the dealer should also have to show that the supplier knew that the dealer had either cut prices or was threatening to do so, but the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out seem superficially to be surplusage. I cannot see what they add to the Clause and why the Clause should not function perfectly well if paragraph (a) were not there at all.
It may be that the first two lines of paragraph (a) are needed to cover the case of a dealer in order to differentiate between the dealer who is in business for the first time and the dealer who has been doing business regularly with the supplier. I can possibly understand all these grounds of need for the first two lines of paragraph (a), but I cannot see what the second two lines add to the


Clause. I should be most grateful for an indication from my right hon. Friend of the use of these words.

Mr. R. H. Turton: It may well be that the words that we are proposing to leave out have no malevolent intent, but merely deal with the case later on where there are new dealers who really are business customers of the supplier. The great danger is that the words are so widely drawn now that it may well make it difficult for a dealer who is a non-price cutter. He may be put at a disadvantage compared with the dealer who is a price cutter.
Through the pressure of the onus to this Clause a price cutting dealer may receive supplies from a supplier whereas a small dealer who has no price-cutting reputation may be refused supplies on other grounds. That is the great danger. To take the case of a brewery company which supplies to certain licensed houses in a district, under the words after "or" in the subsection it might well be that if the company did not agree to supply other licensed houses which were not tied to it, the onus would operate against the company. As we decided on the last Amendment, I am all in favour of the onus being placed firmly on the supplier in cases where there had been previous dealings between the supplier and the dealer. However, unless my right hon. Friend has some pretty good reason for it, I do not think that it is quite fair to put the onus on the supplier where there has been no previous dealing between the supplier and the dealer.
I agree that it is a small point, but I think that it is important, otherwise there is a danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) said, that this could be used for purposes of blackmail by a rather disreputable price-cutting firm. That is the danger I foresee. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully whether he cannot substitute some other form of words, if he has other circumstances in mind to those I envisage where there has been no business connection before between a supplier and a dealer. That is what I want to see safeguarded.

Mr. Heath: I listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) said in moving the Amendment. Perhaps I could deal first with the question put to me

by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who have asked what is the purpose of the words in the second part of subsection (4,a). This is to cover the position of a person with whom the supplier had been doing business at some previous stage but had not recently been doing business, or the case of a new dealer who has come to the supplier.
It is important that we should deal with these two cases. The Amendment would remove the presumption embodied in subsection (4) of the Clause, and it would not be available in the two cases that I have mentioned. We would have it for the person with whom the supplier is dealing at the moment, but by this Amendment it would not be available in the case of a person with whom he had previously done business but was not doing so at the moment, or in the ca se of a new dealer who came to him. It is important to have the presumption available in those cases as well as in the general case where he is doing business at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said that it would put the supplier in the position of supplying the dealer where he would have refused supplies on other grounds. I think that was the point put by my hon. Friend. He said that it would lead to a man giving supplies to a man selling below the recommended price even where they would have been refused on other grounds. There would be no justification for that under the Bill. Fundamentally the question which has to be asked is, "Would he have refused if the dealer had not been selling below the recommended price?"
As in the case quoted by my hon. Friend, the answer would have been "Yes". He would have refused if the man had not been selling below the recommenced price, and in this case it fully justifies him in refusing even if the man is selling below the recommended price. I think that deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend that in the case of a dealer with whom he has not been recently doing business or in the case of a new dealer he would be justified in withholding supplies for the reasons that my hon. Friend has suggested might be there.
In these circumstances, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not think it necessary to press the Amendment. I think that it is necessary to keep the presumption in this case and I hope that I have given the explanation why we feel that is necessary.

Mr. Jay: I am not sure that the Minister is quite right in his interpretation of the effect of the words from line 16 onwards
supplying goods of the same description
and so forth. The Minister said that they were to cover two cases. It seems to me that they cover three cases. There is an additional case which the Minister did not mention. He said that the words were intended to cover the two cases of a dealer with whom the supplier had done business before, or a new dealer who had not been in business with the dealer before.
It covers those two cases, but it also covers the more important and normal case of the dealer with whom the supplier has not done business but who has been in business for a definite period. That is to say, it covers any dealer, old or new, with whom the supplier has not been in business. This is precisely why I am entirely in sympathy with the effect of this Amendment. I am not absolutely sure that the supporters of it fully understand its effect, and so I do not know whether I sympathise with their intentions, but I do sympathise with what I believe to be the effect of the Amendment.
7.0 p.m.
I think that with these words the Secretary of State has pushed his Bill to extremes, because not only does he propose to compel the supplier to trade with a dealer with whom he does not wish to trade, not only is the onus of proof put on him about his motives, but now the Bill goes beyond that and compels a supplier in these circumstances, unless he can prove the contrary, to trade with somebody whom he does not wish to supply and with whom he has never done business even though that dealer is a new dealer who has not been in business before. That seems to us to be the plain meaning of these words. If it is not, we should like to have it explained why it is not. This really does seem to be going too far.
I put it to the Secretary of State. In the normal case where, after all, the manufacturer or wholesaler has not enough goods, has not sufficient supplies, to supply every retailer in the country, or every retailer who comes to ask him for supplies—for the facts of supply and demand may be such, and usually are, that a supplier cannot supply everybody—if we leave the Bill in this situation any retailer who wishes can come along and can demand supplies even though he has never done business with this manufacturer before, and he can say, what is more, "I mean to reduce the prices below your recommended prices." Then the wholesaler says, "I do not want to do business with you and there is no reason why I should." He withholds supplies, and there is no question whatever that if he withholds supplies we reach the extraordinary situation that he is under a legal obligation to furnish supplies which he has not got to this retailer, unless he goes through an elaborate process to prove something very difficult to prove about his motives. Surely that is what the Bill means. If either the Secretary of State or the Attorney-General can show that these words do not mean that, we shall be very glad to be enlightened.

Mr. Heath: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has got this quite right. I think he got it right when dealing with the last Amendment, but now he is saying that a man is compelled to supply even though he has not got the goods to supply, or when his goods are required for his normal outlets. There is nothing in the Bill which justifies this; nothing whatever. The right hon. Gentleman repeatedly said that, and is saying more than that, and on the last Amendment interrupted me and said he did not mean what he said, but there is nothing in the Bill which compels a man to supply if he does not wish to for other reasons which are perfectly genuine reasons—that he has already got his pattern of retailers, or that he does not like a man's shop, perhaps because it is dirty or is not equipped to deal with his particular products, or because he has not got the stocks to supply, or any other such reasons. There is nothing in the Bill to compel supply in those circumstances; absolutely nothing.

Mr. Jay: There is nothing between us on that. If, of course, he can prove he has some reason, then he is not compelled to supply in those circumstances, but unless he can prove it he is under a legal obligation. What I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer is this. I agree that these words would cover not merely the case he mentioned, but they also cover the case of a dealer with whom the supplier has never done business, and a dealer who is not a new dealer and who has been in business for some considerable time.

Mr. Heath: What I said was, any new dealer, who came to the supplier—not just a man who is setting up in business for the first time.

Mr. Jay: So the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it would cover any dealer, even though he had not done any business with the supplier before.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I apologise for my voice. If nothing else will silence me, a cold may even do so yet. But I want to say a word about this because I am rather in line with what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said.
Nobody can be compelled to supply goods he has not got. We all know that one. The point is that what is objectionable here, and why we are trying to delete these words, is that they would make the supplier guilty of contravening the Bill merely because he declined to supply a dealer with whom he has never done any business at all—for various reasons: maybe he deals with only one or two dealers, or, perhaps, he does not like the dealer's face, as somebody said in an earlier debate.
However that may be, this is an inalienable right of the supplier. It is monstrous that it should be written into the Bill that a person unwilling to supply goods should be guilty of a misdemeanour unless he proves himself innocent. That is the point. It has not been cleared up. Nothing which my right hon. Friend has said has cleared it up one iota. If we had been able to come to a sensible decision on the last Amendment we should not now be spending such a lot of time of the Committee on this one, and this one would not have arisen.
This is an important point. Of course, I am grateful for the concession about cash and credit, but we are getting into a position which I think is objectionable, that it should be written into the Bill that the onus of proof should fall on the supplier for quite different reasons altogether, and that he should have to go to all the trouble of doing that. Maybe my right hon. Friend argues that in the ordinary course of business a lot of people write letters to a lot of other people, but the fact of the matter is that it is wrong—and that is what we are grumbling about—wrong that this provision should be here, and it has got to be fought inch by inch, unless one gets some understanding of what we regard as the inalienable right of the supplier to decline to supply anyone whom he does not think fit. If he does not supply someone whom he does not think fit, he should be held guilty by withholding goods. That is the issue, not this other rather narrower issue which we have been discussing for the last quarter of an hour.

Mr. Winterbottom: I follow the point of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and I will put what I think are rather practical problems. Suppose there is a man who is cutting prices in a shop and as a result of cutting prices in that district he commandeers most of the trade. I am not talking of manufacturers. There seems to be difficulty amongst hon. Members in distinguishing between a manufacturer and a wholesaler. In many cases there is more than one wholesaler to deal with, even in one class of goods. This man would get supplies from the wholesaler to satisfy the growing trade he has got as a result of price cutting.
The definition of the wholesaler who is supplying him is quite clear; the right hon. Gentleman's definition is clear—if he is accused of withholding supplies on the question of resale price maintenance. But suppose that the man who is price cutting goes to another wholesaler with whom he has not had any dealings before and tries to become a new customer. If he wants specified goods to cover his increased trade as a result of price cutting, does the right hon. Gentleman think he is going to go to the wholesaler for just those goods?
There are few retailers who go to a wholesaler for just one class of goods


alone. They usually go for the whole gamut of goods which they sell in their shops, unless they have specific agreements with manufacturers. So we should have the situation of a person refusing goods specially covered because of the price cutting indulged in. I want to know whether that would mean that he would be guilty because he is a new customer.
The second question is one I have raised before. Suppose there is a stationer who wants to start selling newspapers. In some parts of the country to get into the newspaper selling business has been a most difficult proposition. Indeed, it has been a closed preserve. To get a box number was almost impossible unless one was prepared to pay tremendous prices for goodwill. I take the point of the right hon. Gentleman about blackmail. If immediately the Bill becomes law there is a stationer who wants to become a newsagent and goes to a newsagents' supplier in the locality and says, "I want newspapers", then even though the refusal might stand a test before the Restrictive Practices Court, nevertheless rather than face all the difficulty which surrounds it, the supplier may be frightened by the possibility of blackmail, because the retailer may say, "I want other supplies from you."
The Amendment is right. The moment we start talking about new customers, we have problems. The right hon. Gentleman is to meet the situation about cash and credit, but there are 101 things in the world of distribution which are as awkward as credit and in respect of which suppliers do not want to supply new customers as distinct from old customers. It is wrong that they should be forced to do so.
For example, a retailer may wish to sell newspapers. He may say to the supplier, "I want to send my son, who is old enough to deliver newspapers, to the nearest factory and to sell newspapers there, despite the fact that there are two or three newspaper shops in the district. I buy many other things from you, and if you do not supply me with newspapers I shall take you to the Restrictive Practices Court and charge you with having refused to supply me because I sell certain things cheaper than other people and you call me a price

cutter". That could happen in thousands of cases up and down the country with new clients.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) is therefore right. On this question of new clients the right hon. Gentleman should give an earnest of his good intentions by not complicating what is already a very complicated business in wholesaling. There ought to be a concession in respect of new clients. If I were a wholesaler and felt that because of indirect pressure—and the indirect pressure is more potent than the direct pressure—I was being forced to supply somebody I did not want to supply, then I should curse the right hon. Gentleman's name from now to doomsday; and that is how some people will feel about him unless he concedes this point.

Mr. William Shepherd: completely fail to understand how hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have anxieties about suppliers being forced under the Clause to supply people they do not wish to supply. In the first place, the average small retailer would be in no position to embark upon the processes necessary to establish his rights. In the main, he would be at a very serious disadvantage compared with the larger manufacturer, and the latter would be the only person seeking to enforce the provision. The retailer starts at a distinct disadvantage.
Surely the danger under the Clause is that suppliers will get away with it because they can pretend that they are stopping supplies for reasons other than the right reasons. This is the most logical possibility. If I want to stop supplies to Mr. X because he is cutting the prices of my goods, I can find half a dozen reasons which will have some sort of substance in court to show that I stopped the supplies for those reasons and not because of price-cutting.
I might say that I cannot deliver to his district, that I already have my distribution points there, that I do not like the service which the man proposes to give, that I do not like his shop or that I have a number of agents or retailers in the area. There could be a dozen reasons which I could bring before the Court which would justify an action which I was taking because I did not want to supply this man because he was a price cutter.
This is the genuine anxiety to which the Committee ought to address its attention—the weakness of enforcement, not the reverse. I do not understand the anxiety of those who imagine that this Clause is too severe.

Mr. Turton: May I answer my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)? I have exactly his fear. I do not think that it is the small retailer who will have an advantage; it is the large retailer, the chain store, the price-cutting firm, which will have this chance of blackmailing.
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that he has a good case where there have been previous dealings between a particular supplier and a particular dealer, but I do not think that it is fair to put the onus on these suppliers in the case of a new dealer. If my right hon. Friend would think over this matter before Report, he might consider whether a change in the wording would not cover the point satisfactorily and would prevent the danger, which he may think unreal but which others, who have knowledge of the trade and know the power of the large chain store as opposed to the small retailer, regard as very real. In paragraph (a) he confines it to
down to the time when supplies were so withheld the supplier was doing business with the retailer…
I should have thought that he could enlarge that considerably. If he did, and if he left out the alternative, it would he helpful. This is a real danger, because I believe that the small retailer will be at a great disadvantage as opposed to the chain stores and the large price-cutting enterprises. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at this again before Report.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Heath: I hope that hon. Members will not exaggerate the anxieties which they may have about this aspect of the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) expressed great anxiety that there would be blackmail of this kind and that hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country would be affected. I do not believe that to be the case, and I agree very much with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle

(Mr. Shepherd) on this aspect. The small retailer will have a retailers' association which can support him, or he can go to the Board of Trade for the Crown to take action, and he is fully backed in any action which may be required under the Clause. Although it may be said that the large firm has resources with which to take action against the supplier, I do not think that the small retailer is at any disadvantage in this respect.
What is very important, I do not believe that either the large or the small retailer—through his retailers' association—or the Crown will give other than the most careful consideration to whether actions of this kind should be brought without first finding out the circumstances of the dealer. The hon. Member for Brightside mentioned, particularly, the sale of newspapers. The system of franchise in newspapers is well known. Everybody knows that certain people have rights in a certain town to sell newspapers. It is a well-established position. Anyone who thought of trying to blackmail or to bring any action would think very carefully before proposing action in such a case when the system is well established.
This system has been much criticised because new people find it very difficult to obtain a franchise. This is the other aspect of the balance. I should have thought that the Committee agreed that it is not right that a newcomer to the trade should be unable to get supplies from anywhere, because the balance would then be in the wrong direction and the onus would be placed entirely on him. This aspect must be taken into account in the circumstances of subsection (4).
Because of this, I believe that fundamentally it is right to keep the balance like this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, this applies where previously the man had been in business dealing with the supplier, although he was not dealing with him at the moment, but it also applies to new dealers. I hope my tight hon. Friend recognises that we must keep a balance and that there is the question of fairness to the new man coming into a trade when the supplier can withhold supplies for a large number of reasons, such as those


given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. It would not be right in our view for supplies to be withheld from him on the grounds that he is selling below the price. I hope that the Committee will accept that view.

Mr. Winterbottom: I do not accept the point put by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). The philosophy of the successful "dodge" does not appeal to me quite so much. In newspaper retailing, the creation of a new entry in the sale of newspapers is common practice because of the goodwill involved. I will give an example of this.
I know of a new estate of 600 houses being built. It will have its own shopping centre, with one newsagent's shop. Whoever gets that shop will be very fortunate because, in the very first week that he starts to sell newspapers, however few, the goodwill value of the shop will rise tremendously because of the potentialities of delivery of newspapers. In some districts men go to inordinate lengths to capitalise on the goodwill value. This is an important factor throughout the trade.

Sir Patrick Bishop: Whatever may be thought of arrangements through newspaper franchises, they have never included resale price maintenance. There has never been any form of r.p.m. in the sale of newspapers.

Mr. Winterbottom: Unless we include an exemption in the Bill there will be

nothing to stop a newsagent selling a newspaper at less than the stipulated price on the cover.

Mr. W. Wells: The Amendment has taken a rather curious course. I do not think that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) appreciated its significance, which was obscure until the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) spoke, followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). We regard the explanation given by the Secretary of State as quite unsatisfactory.
It is, of course, right that the choice of a new entrant into a business should be preserved and that precautions be taken to that effect. If that were all that the Clause did, we should be in favour of it. But that is far from being what it does. As has been said, it opens the door to blackmail by a large organisation of particular interests to use the machinery of the Clause in order to put pressure on a supplier either to supply its members or else be brought into court, with the onus of proof weighted against him, our previous Amendment having been rejected. In these circumstances, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide in favour of the Amendment.

Question put,That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 228, Noes 182.

Division No. 76.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allason, James
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Dance, James


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Buck, Antony
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bullard, Denys
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Atkins, Humphrey
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Doughty, Charles


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon, Sir Alec


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Gordon
Drayson, G. B.


Barter, John
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
du Cann, Edward


Batsford, Brian
Cary, Sir Robert
Eden, Sir John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Channon, H. P. G.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Berkeley, Humphry
Chataway, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (Newo'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Bidgood, John C.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Biffen, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Farey-Jones, F W.


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Farr, John


Bingham, R. M.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fell, Anthony


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Corfield, F. V.
Finlay, Graeme


Black, Sir Cyril
Coulson, Michael
Fisher, Nigel


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Courteney, Cdr. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Critchley, Julian
Freeth, Denzil


Box, Donald
Crowder, F. P.
Gammans, Lady


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gardner, Edward


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Curran, Charles
Gibson-Watt, David


Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)




Gilmour, Sir, John (East Fife)
Lubbock, Eric
Ridsdale, Julian


Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Goodhew, Victor
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roots, William


Gower, Raymond
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Grant-Ferrism, R.
MacLeod, Sir John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley R.
Sharples, Richard


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Shaw, M.


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Maddan, Martin
Shopherd, William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maitland, Sir John
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Speir, Rupert


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marten, Neill
Stainton, Keith


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hay, John
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Stodart, J. A.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, Ray
Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cdr. S. L. C.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mills, Stratton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hollingworth, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Holt, Arthur
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hooson, H. E.
Morgan, William
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hopkins, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Temple, John M.


Hornby, R. P.
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Turner, Colin


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Partridge, E.
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, John
Wade, Donald


Kimball, Marcus
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wall, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene


Kitson, Timothy
Pitman, Sir James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lagden, Godfrey
Pitt, Dame Edith
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Pounder, Rafton
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leavey, J. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pym, Francis
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Litchfield, Capt. John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Woodnutt, Mark


Longbottom, Charles
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter



Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Loveys, Walter H.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and




Mr. Hugh Rees.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crosland, Anthony
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Ainsley, William
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gourlay, Harry


Albu, Austen
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Daiyell, Tam
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Darling, George
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Barnett, Guy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Beaney, Alan
Deer, George
Hayman, F. H.


Bence, Cyril
Delargy, Hugh
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hilton, A. V.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Diamond, John
Holman, Percy


Benson, Sir George
Dodds, Norman
Houghton, Douglas


Blyton, William
Dolg, Peter
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Boardman, H.
Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Howie, W.


Bowies, Frank
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hoy, James H.


Boyden, James
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Evans, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bradley, Tom
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Finch, Harold
Hunter, A. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fitch, Alan
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foley, Maurice
Hynd, John (Atterclilfe)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Carmichael, Neil
Forman, J. C.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Chapman, Donald
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Collick, Percy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jeger, George


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ginsburg, David
Jones, J. Idwai (Wrexham)







Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
O'Malley, B. K.
Spriggs, Leslie


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Steele, Thomas


Kenyon, Clifford
Owen, Will
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


King, Dr. Horace
Padley, W. E.
Stones, William


Lawson, George
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Ledger, Ron
Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Parker, John
Swain, Thomas


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Paton, John
Symonds, J. B.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pavitt, Laurence
Taverne, D.


Lipton, Marcus
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McBride, N.
Popplewell, Ernest
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


McCann, J.
Prentice, R. E.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Timmons, John


MacDermot. Niall
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wainwright, Edwin


McInnes, James
Randall, Harry
Warbey, William


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Rankin, John
Watkins, Tudor


McLeavy, Frank
Redhead, E. C.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mahon, Simon
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Whitlock, William


Manuel, Archie
Rhodes, H.
Wigg, George


Mapp, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Frederick


Mellish, R. J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Millan, Bruce
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Rose, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Monslow, G. R.
Short, Edward
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moody, A. S.
Skeffington, Arthur
Wyatt, Woodrow


Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Small, William



Moyle, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neal, Harold
Snow, Julian
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Grey


Oliver, G. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Jay: I am delighted to see that on this occasion we are to have the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport). We have been waiting to hear his views throughout the debates on the Bill, and now we are to have them.
Apart from that, I want only to say very briefly that we on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the Clause as it stands. It lays the onus of proof on the supplier on the essential point if he is to be relieved of the obligation of supplying various retailers unwillingly. We are unsatisfied on two points—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree with that way of phrasing it—arising out of the Secretary of State's speeches this afternoon. First, the right hon. Gentleman has made an extraordinary distinction between the withholding of supplies on the ground of the credit terms that the supplier is willing to give in his opinion of the dealer and withholding supplies because the manufacturer takes some other view of the dealer's reputability. We do not think that that case has been made out.
Secondly, we are equally dissatisfied with the Government's attitude on the last Amendment, which requires suppliers in certain cases to supply goods to

dealers with whom they have not previously done business. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that way of phrasing it. We must return to both these topics on Report, and as we do not support the Clause in its present form, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Graham Page: My questions are directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and are connected with subsections (2) and (3) and deal with when litigation may arise. Subsection (2) is concerned with the obligation to comply with the said provisions". One finds from subsection (1) that the "said provisions" are all the Bill's foregoing provisions. Therefore, any breach of Clauses 1, 2 or 3 would come within the possibility of litigation under Clause 4(2) and it is litigation by
any person who may be affected by a contravention".
Does that mean any person who is affected by the contravention of Clauses 1, 2 or 3, such as a member of the public who is affected by the wrongful maintenance of resale prices?
"Any person affected" in this context must include any member of the public, although that seems to be going extremely wide. To cut it down to a somewhat narrower compass, could it be anyone other than the deprived dealer? A dealer may be a wholesaler


or retailer. If the manufacturer has deprived the wholesaler of goods for wrong reasons, can the retailer who has been deprived by the fact that the manufacturer has deprived the wholesaler come into the action?
Can he begin the action? The phrase "any person" goes a very long way and may bring in anyone who is in any way affected. Why the word "affected"? Why not "suffered damage"? He could have been favourably affected. It must surely mean anyone who has suffered damage by contravention of the Bill and, if so, why not say so? The word "affected" brings in many people who might able to bring an action.
On the subject of costs, it must be clear from subsection (2) that if the action is between two private individuals, for example, if a retailer is bringing an action against a wholesaler for wrongfully withholding goods from him, it is just a private action and the ordinary rules as to costs would apply in the discretion of the Court and the successful litigant would expect to be awarded his costs. But does that apply under subsection (3) when the Crown brings an action? Is there any restriction on a court's discretion in awarding costs against the Crown if the Crown is unsuccessful in the litigation?

Mr. Hale: I did not intervene when the right hon. Gentleman replied to some of my earlier observations on this Clause, but I want to take this opportunity briefly to reply to one or two of his points.
The right hon. Gentleman has throughout these debates replied to the debates with admirable good humour, in circumstances in which good humour is admirable and is to be respected. However, I thought that at one stage of his argument he rather departed from the high standard that he had set himself. He said that I was probably opposed to legislation in principle. I am. The right hon. Gentleman said that I regard litigation as a dreadful prospect for both parties. I do.
For over 30 years, as a solicitor, I consistently discouraged my clients from resorting to litigation, and I believe that every solicitor supports the view that litigation should be discouraged, because so often both parties lose. I think that solicitors try to discourage their clients

from resorting to litigation, whether it appears that a matter of principle is involved or not, for very often what clients consider to be matters of principle are not so regarded by their legal advisers.
7.45 p.m.
I would discourage litigation, just as I would discourage legislation, and I have a touch of philosophical anarchism about it. But when the right hon. Gentleman says that it I am relating the views of hon. Members about the Bill to his views about the Clause, he does me and the Committee an injustice. Our job is to try to improve the Bill and to correct its manifest defects, whether we approve of the principle of the Bill or not.
I will commit an act of injudicious frankness. I have never regarded the Bill as very important, and I have always thought that its effects, either for or against, have been grossly exaggerated from time to time. I think that, on the whole, the Bill will benefit A. B. C. foods and multiple stores, whom I do not particularly like, at the expense of the small shopkeeper, whom I do like. I want to protect the small shopkeeper from extinction, because I think that he is a very attractive species, and when a species is attractive I am not very concerned about whether he is efficient or not. The small shopkeepers in Oldham are friendly people, and they have many friends.
I was on the Select Committee which approved the admirable rules which govern the proceeding in this Committee. Under those rules we have to consider the Clause as it exists, and not as it will be when it is sabotaged by the right hon. Gentleman on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) made some attractive and declamatory observations about the Clause and the Amendments that were under discussion. No one in the Committee has more right to rejoice over the recovery of my hon. Friend than I have. I think that the whole Committee sympathises with my hon. Friend in the dreadful injuries which he received and rejoices at his recovery. Most of us have a deep affection for him.
Nobody addresses the House of Commons with more charming irrelevance, or with greater courage. There are few heights of ratiocination which he


has not attempted at one time or another to scale, and if he has been slightly accident-prone it is because the slopes were too acute for him. Now that he has made a full physical recovery, except perhaps for this manifest and chronic attack of cacoethes loquendi, which we shall bear with optimism, we all rejoice.
I come back to where I started. This is a complicated Bill. It is almost impossible for any of us to contemplate the retention of the present wording of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be possible to apply for an interim injunction. That is true. One can apply for almost anything in the courts, but one does not often get it. The courts have said that they will not grant an injunction except on proof of an exceptional situation that needs immediate restraint, because the granting of an interim injunction to some extent gives an ex parte view, and the proceedings are often adjourned until the applicant can submit evidence by affidavit and so on. It is not really a happy remedy to offer the retailer in Oldham.
But now the right hon. Gentleman announces that an Amendment on the Report stage will torpedo the Clause. The supplier is to be enabled to avoid the issue by means drafted with cynical unconcern. On that, Mr. Blackburn, I would be out of order—and I realise my folly in calling to your personal attention to the possibility of my being out of order in a moment or two—if I were to pursue the right hon. Gentleman's observations, but I hope that he will reconsider this, for I believe that his Amendment will make the Bill nugatory and expose its nudity.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is here now. I paid him a generous tribute in his absence. I crowned him with laurels tinctured with myrrh. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that he is going to provide by way of an Amendment that if the dealer gives another excuse it does not matter. The supplier does not say, "I am giving you the go by because you broke the terms of the r.p.m. agreement". He now writes in one of these agreements to which my hon. Friend referred as having taken

place outside the precincts of the House in the nether regions of some sort.
I understand that we are about to be presented with a Clause which will read, "The wholesaler does not really have to establish anything if he stops a retailer's credit and says that his reason for doing that has nothing to do with resale price maintenance, but simply because he does not like the retailer's face, or his bank account, or his habits, or his religion, or his politics, or something of that kind. If a retailer's credit is stopped, he has had it, and if it is a collective action, again he has had it only more so.
A few days ago I paid generous tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that he had triumphed, but this is surrender. This makes the Clause nugatory and I hope that he will reconsider it. I, too, shall reconsider it, because I have on occasion been wrong, but it is a long time since the last occasion when I was wrong. In the 400th year of the commemoration of Shakespeare, we are confronted with the right hon. Gentleman saying:
Let but the commons hear this testament (Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read,").
Now we come to the stage when but yesterday the word of the right hon. Gentleman might have stood against the world—or at least the Common Market—but
…now lies he there
And none so poor to do him reverence.
Soon he will be questioning
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
and be concerned about those
Who would these fardels bear.
Before these three days are concluded the right hon. Gentleman may be rising to question the utility of "a bare bodkin". But I hope not, for his sake.

Mr. Winterbottom: I liked the quotations given by my hon. Friend but I do not indulge in reading Shakespeare very often these days. I prefer musical comedy. There is a verse in musical comedy which fits the right hon. Gentleman—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): I hope that it also fits the Clause.

Mr. Winterbottom: The Clause and the right hon. Gentleman remind me of a song which, allowing for suitable alterations, went something like this:
Sometimes he may say 'Yes',
Sometimes he may say 'No', 
Or whispering low with his cheeks all aglow
He leaves us poor chaps to guess, 
So patient we must grow. 
And as the years lapse
The future will show
That although he says 'No'
The Minister may mean 'Perhaps'.
I think that the Minister has killed his own Bill by giving way on various points which have already been debated, or promising seriously to consider them. We are now at the end of Clause 4, and we can write "finis" to the Bill as an effective Measure. It is as dead as the dodo. It will not make much of a contribution to solving the problem of resale price maintenance.
It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman to hear that I believe in the abolition of resale price maintenance. I believe that we should introduce a good, comprehensive Bill which deals with the subject, and covers the manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer.

The Temporary Chairman: These philosophical reflections are all very well, but they are hardly concerned with the Clause. I hope that the hon. Member will deal with the Clause during his speech.

Mr. Winterbottom: With great respect, Mr. Blackburn, we are at a stage in the Bill where we can review the progress we have made up to now.

The Temporary Chairman: That may be what the hon. Member thinks, but it is not according to the rules of the Committee.

Mr. Winterbottom: God never condemned a cheerful trier.
At any rate, I repeat the questions about costs which have been asked of the Minister by his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). If we are to have a series of cases arising from the provisions of the Bill, ineffective though it may be, it might be that both wholesalers and retailers, in their respective spheres, are brought to the courts merely through continuing to carry out

what are common practices in each section of the trade. It may be that costs will be incurred by the wholesaler or the retailer as a result of doing no wrong and with no intention to do wrong.
Wholesalers are often faced with the problem of turnover. The main reason for the existence of wholesalers is that they provide a kind of stocking house for retailers. If, in the exercise of their functions, they are compelled to take more stock than they normally take, as a result of the Bill they may be faced with litigation because they subsequently try to keep down their stocks. The Minister must face the fact that even if a wholesaler cannot supply a retailer because of a shortage of stock he may be involved in litigation through no fault of his own.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that, in that event, if wholesalers or retailers suffer they shall be recompensed for any losses. If the Minister begins to realise the implications of what I am saying he will begin to realise the price that he must pay for a very inadequate Bill.
I am sorry that the rules of order prevent me from saying what I believe should be in, the Bill. Later in our proceedings there may be an opportunity to do that. Certain it is that even though I believe in the abolition of resale price maintenance I also believe in analysing very closely this Clause in particular. It is only part of a Bill which certainly does not provide the proper way to deal with the problem of prices, and certainly not the proper way to deal legislatively with the problem of distribution.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I want to deal principally with the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). He asked what was meant by the words
any person who may be affected by a contravention".
of the foregoing provisions, in subsection (2)
Clause 1 makes void for the purposes of the law certain conditions if they are included in a contract of sale. It is therefore unlikely that anybody will be adversely affected, or will wish to complain of a contravention of this Clause, because it is self-operating in making


void under the law certain conditions of contract.
Therefore, we turn to Clause 2, under which a duty is laid upon a supplier not to withhold supplies, from a dealer—and the duty is only upon the supplier to supply the dealer as defined by the Bill. It might be that third parties would be affected by a breach of that duty. I am not prepared to say that such a case would not arise, but I think that it would be unusual, since a duty is laid down only for a supplier not to withhold supplies from a dealer.
My hon. Friend asked why subsection (2) referred to a person who may be "affected" and not a person who may "suffer damage". The intention is to seek to establish a mandatory order. A dealer might find it difficult to show that he had suffered damage from the withholding of supplies, although be might want the supplies and establish a

right to have them. He might wish to do so by way of a mandatory order. If he had to prove that he had suffered damage before he could bring his action it might inhibit him from doing so in a number of cases.

The question of costs was referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). All those who litigate in the courts are at risk as to costs. When the Crown litigates in the courts it is at risk as to costs, and if the Crown takes over any litigation in the courts in these cases I understand that it will be liable to pay costs if it is unsuccessful and an order for costs is made.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 178.

Division No. 77.]
AYES
[8.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Allason, James
Coulson, Michael
Hastings, Stephen


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hay, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Critchley, Julian
Hill, Mrs. Evelyn (Wythenshawe)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Crowder, F. P.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Curran, Charles
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bartow, Sir John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hooking, Philip N.


Barter, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holland, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Hollingworth, John


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Holt, Arthur


Berkeley, Humphry
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hooson, H. E.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hopkins, Alan


Bidgood, John C.
Doughty, Charles
Hornby, R. P.


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Biggs-Davison, John
du Cann, Edward
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bingham, R. M.
Eden, Sir John
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Iramonger, T. L.


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Box, Donald
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Brewis, John
Freeth, Denzil
Kimball, Marcus


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. Sir Walter
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kirk, Peter


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gammans, Lady
Kitson, Timothy


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward
Lagden, Godfrey


Bullard, Denys
Gibson-Watt, David
Lambton, Viscount


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Campbell, Gordon
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Litchfield, Capt. John


Channon, H. P. G.
Gower, Raymond
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Chataway, Christopher
Grant-Ferris, R.
Longbottom, Charles


Chichester-Clark, R.
Green, Alan
Longden, Gilbert


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Loveys, Walter H.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Lubbock, Eric


Cleaver, Leonard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayre)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
MacLeod, Sir John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)




McMaster, Stanley R.
Pitman, Sir James
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Temple, John M.


Maddan, Martin
Pounder, Rafton
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maginnis, John E.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Maitland, Sir John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Marshall, Sir Douglas
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Marten, Neil
Pym, Francis
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James
Thornton-Kemstey, Sir Colin


Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Mawby, Ray
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ronton, Rt. Hon. David
Touche, Rt. Hon, Sir Gordon


Mills, Stratton
Ridsdale, Julian
Turner, Colin


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morgan, William
Roots, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Neave, Alrey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wade, Donald


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Sharples, Richard
Wall, Patrick


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Shaw, M.
Ward, Darne Irene


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Shepherd, William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, William


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntl'd&amp;Chiswick)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Speir, Rupert
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stalnton, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Partridge, E.
Stodart, J. A.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stoddant-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Woodnutt, Mark


Percival, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel
Woollam, John


Peyton, John
Studholme, Sir Henry



Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Summers, Sir Spencer
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Hugh Roes.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Finch, Harold
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Ainsley, William
Fitch, Alan
Lipton, Marcus


Albu, Austen
Foley, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McBride, N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Forman, J. C.
McCann, J.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James


Barnett, Guy
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mclnnes, James


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Bence, Cyril
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Anthony
Manuel, Archie


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, David (Rother valley)
Mapp, Charles


Blyton, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Bowles, Frank
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mltchison, G. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harper, Joseph
Monslow, Walter


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moody, A. S.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holman, Percy
Neal, Harold


Carmichael, Nell
Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
O'Malley, B. K.


Collick, Percy
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howle, W.
Owen, Will


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Partley, W. E.


Cutlen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John


Darling, George
Hunter, A. E.
Paton, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John (Attercilffe)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Popplewell, Ernest


Deer, George
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jeger, George
Probert, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pursey, Cmdr, Harry


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Redhead, E. C.


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Ledger, Ron
Robertson, John (Palsley)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William




Short, Edward
Slross, Sir Bamett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Skeffington, Arthur
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Taverne, D.
Willey, Frederick


Small, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas, forwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Snow, Julian
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Spriggs, Leslie
Thornton, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, Thomas
Timmons, John
Wyatt, Woodrow


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wainwrigtit, Edwin
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Stones, William
Warbey, William



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. B. (Vauxhall)
Watkins, Tudor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Dr. Broughton and Mr. Grey.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(POWER OF COURT TO EXEMPT CLASSES OF GOODS.)

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 4, line 31, to leave out "Restrictive Practices Court" and to insert "Monopolies Commission".

The Temporary Chairman: There are 24 other Amendments which may be discussed with this Amendment. There is a list in the "No" Lobby which hon. Members have probably seen. If any hon. Member wishes me to read out the list, I will do so.

Mr. Wade: As you have said, Mr. Blackburn, there are a number of other Amendments which may be discussed with this Amendment. They are Nos. 55, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 124, 132, 133, 134, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161 and 165.
Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to read out the Amendment in full. I am not sure whether this is a record, but it is the first occasion on which I have had the task of referring to 25 Amendments at the same time. They deal primarily with one point. The object is to provide that applications for exemptions should be made to a special division of an enlarged Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission instead of the Restrictive Practices Court.
The task of drafting these Amendments which involve a major alteration to the Bill has not been very easy and I have no doubt that it would be possible to pick holes in some of the Amendments. I hope that the proposal will be discussed on its merits. Incidentally, it would be interesting to learn whether it is true that the Secretary of State's original intention was to make use of the Monopolies Commission and if that be so why the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind. Be that as it may, I think the issue is worthy of debate.
How one approaches this subject will, I think, depend on the attitude to the Bill of hon. Members as a whole. I think it quite clear that there are some hon. Members who would like to kill the Bill. They wish to destroy it altogether. Other hon. Members are endeavouring to ensure that the Bill is rather more fair and effective. It will be an extremely difficult task to make this Bill fair and effective, but that is my object. I believe that the Amendments would help in that respect and I think that they would meet some of the objections made during earlier debates and also some objections which will be raised in later discussions on Clause 5.
May I, first, make this general comment? I think that the Government have got their priorities wrong. First, the Government should have remedied the flaws which have become only too apparent about the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. They should have dealt with restrictive practices in industry and the whole subject of monopolies and mergers and enlarged the Monopolies Commission which I think is envisaged in the White Paper on monopolies, mergers and restrictive practices. But I repeat that I think the priorities are wrong. Had the whole subject been dealt with in that way r.p.m. in the retail trades would have been seen in the right perspective.
We have never had an adequate explanation why there has been this determination to go for the shopkeepers first. Some hon. Members, as I say, are against any alteration in the application of r.p.m. They are the defenders of the status quo and, therefore, I suppose they will oppose the Bill as a whole. It is still not clear how many hon. Members opposite are upholders of the status quo. I am not. I summarise my view in this way. I think that the interests of the consumer should


be paramount, but it is a mistake to regard the interests of the consumer and those of the retailer as necessarily conflicting. An unfortunate impression has been created that this is a battle between the shopkeeper and the shopping public. Very often their interests coincide.
8.15 p.m.
I think—and this is an essential point in coming to this question of the Monopolies Commission—that emphasis must be placed on consumer protection. Where that is necessary I do not believe that resale price maintenance under ordinary circumstances is the most effective method. I do not wish to stray too far from the object of the Amendments which I am advocating. Therefore, I cannot outline the alternative and simpler Bill which I should have preferred. Whether one proceeds with the Bill now before the Committee or a simpler Bill, for example by repealing Section 25 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956 with certain exemptions, I think that there would have to be some procedure. It is needed for deciding whether certain classes of goods should be granted exemption. That is to say, if I introduced what I think would have been a simpler Bill, or if one has to accept this Bill, in either circumstance I recognise that there must be some procedure for exemption.
The practical question is, what is the best procedure to adopt whereby a decision may be reached whether or not certain classes of goods should be exempted? I think it is clear that an expanded Monopolies Commission is capable of performing this duty. Some hon. Members may prefer a court. I think at any rate it must be accepted that a division of the Monopolies Commission would be capable of carrying out this task. It has already been agreed by the Government that the Monopolies Commission should be enlarged. We now know the intention of the Government as set out in the White Paper. I was one who was strongly opposed to cutting down the size and curtailing the functions of the Monopolies Commission in I956—but that is past history. Now we are to have some enlargement of the Monopolies Commission. I see no practical or administrative objection to placing the duty of considering applica-

tions upon the special commission of the Monopolies Commission.
It may be argued that the Commission is not a judicial body, but surely the issues which this Bill raises are political, social and economic. They are not strictly a subject which requires interpretation by lawyers. I do not speak and I have no reason to speak with any bias against the processes of the law or with any disrespect to the judiciary, but I should have thought that here there might be a danger of there being too narrow a legalistic view and certainly a very real danger that one might be embarking on many years of legal argument arising out of this Bill. I am appalled at the complexity of the provisions which we have already debated in the first four Clauses. I know that it has been contended that these subjects are judicial and that may well be true. Anything is judicial if Parliament so decides, but most of the issues are extremely difficult to decide on the basis of pure legal arguments. They are not really of a nature which one would expect to he decided by a court of law. I have been strengthened in that view after listening to the debates which have taken place so far on the first four Clauses.
I have endeavoured to foresee how the Bill will work out in practice. First, we must consider what exactly it is that the Court, under the Bill as at present worded, will have to decide and what form the decision will take. After all the arguments which we have heard, the Court will surely have to give a simple "Yes" or "No" to the application for exemption, but there are many cases in which a more flexible procedure might be preferable. There may be many cases in which it might be desirable that the body considering the application should make a recommendation to the Government drawing attention to certain considerations which do not come strictly within the purview of the Court's jurisdiction or within the criteria laid down in the Bill. A simple "Yes" or "No" to the application may not be appropriate. This became clear when one listened to the debates on the batch of Amendments to Clause 1. In the debate on 24th March the Lord Privy Seal said—

Mr. Jay: When the hon. Member refers to the Lord Privy Seal, does he mean the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Wade: Yes, I do. The Minister said,
In looking at this problem we must clearly separate questions of safety and health, which are dealt with under existing legislation affecting all these products, from questions of price through resale price maintenance. There are very important differences which we must keep clear all the time in our minds."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 24th March, 1964; Vol. 692. c. 374.]
I agree with this distinction, but it was this statement which helped to persuade me that the now famous Amendment No. 17 deserved to be supported. It seemed to prove that there were a range of arguments which might come outside the considerations of the gateways contained in the Bill.
If one accepts the view that the subject of price maintenance is closely bound up with such matters as safety and health and yet at the same time that safety and health must be kept quite separate and distinct from the subject of price maintenance, what precisely is the Court to do in dealing with applications in which considerations of safety and health are involved? I think that this is a very important point—and it is important whether the application is to be made to the Court or to the Commission. But it seems to me preferable that the procedure of the Commission should be used, since the Commission would be able to make a recommendation rather than an order and the recommendation could draw attention to these considerations of safety and health.
Perhaps a few illustrations will help to make this point clear. I think that the pharmaceutical industry provides a useful illustration. It may not be the best example—the court may decide in any case that the main classes of goods sold by chemists come within one or other of the existing exemptions—but I will take it as an illustration of what I have in mind.
Let us suppose that the Court considers that the case is not proved and that they should not be allowed to continue to operate r.p.m.—that it does not come within the criteria laid down and therefore that r.p.m. should be abolished for

the chemists. At the same time, the Court may be impressed with the need for strenghening the law relating to the sale of poisons. It may be impressed with the case for having limited outlets for drugs.
Again, let us suppose that, quite apart from questions of price, the Court considers that it may not be in the public interest to encourage competition in the sale of drugs. This is a social question and, as I understand it, the Minister has made a distinction between matters concerned with price maintenance and other matters of safety and health. Again, let us assume that, notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister of Health yesterday, it is considered that the remuneration of dispensing chemists is inadequate to ensure the successful operation of the National Health Service. What would happen then?
It seems to me that on the principle laid down by the Minister, which I have already quoted from HANSARD, these matters of safety and health will not come within the purview of the court. What, then, would the Court be entitled to do? Would the Court be entitled to make a recommendation that these social problems should first be resolved and that the abolition of r.p.m. should be deferred until they have been dealt with? I should have thought not. I have carefully examined the Bill, and I can find no provisions which would enable the Court to do this. Some hon. Members are in favour of adding additional criteria, but I think that that would only make the legal processes even more complicated—and that is the problem.
Let me give another illustration by examining a branch of the retail trade which I do not think so far has been mentioned—the sale of footwear. I have received a long letter, which I have here, from a constituent who points out the importance of giving adequate care to young people's feet and the damage which can be done by fitting growing children with unsuitable shoes. Foot health is certainly important. It may well be that the best answer is to educate the public in foot health rather and to tackle it from the angle of consumer protection. But what would happen if an application were made and the Court thought that r.p.m. should be abolished


but at the same time wished to draw attention to this important subject of foot health? According to the Minister's definition it would seem that the subject would be outside the scope of the Court's deliberations.
In the case of an application to the Commission, there would be no objection, as I see it, to the Commission taking into account these wider considerations, and in making a recommendation and drawing the Government's attention to what is, in effect, Government policy it might recommend that the abolition of r.p.m. be deferred until certain policy is carried out. I do not see how the court could do this. A judge might well express some obiter dicta. I do not know whether "express" is the right word; I believe "let fall" is the normal phrase. But suppose the judge let fall some obiter dicta, there would be no obligation on the Government of the day to take any notice of such observations.
Turning again to the alternative proposal, I should perhaps explain briefly what I envisage as the procedure. If an application were referred to a division of the Monopolies Commission, I think that this would happen: the Bill as it stands provides for lists to be drawn up and applications to be made to the court in respect of certain classes of goods. There are no serious practical objections to following a somewhat similar procedure before an application is heard by the Commission, but obviously I cannot introduce another list of Amendments in the light of what happened on Clauses 3 and 4.
There is another point of some importance. When a case has been heard, the Commission will make a recommendation, not an order. This would require the approval of the President of the Board of Trade before it took effect.
It may be asked whether this would involve bringing the whole issue back to Parliament for further debate on a particular class of goods. I do not think that would necessarily follow. In the Amendments which I have tabled I have not provided that the Minister, before giving approval, should be required to lay on Order or a Regulation for negative or affirmative Resolution by Parliament. All that would be required would be the approval of the Minister to the recommendation in favour of exemption. If

the Commission did not recommend exemption, that would be the end of the matter.
It might be thought desirable that the approval of the President of the Board of Trade should be supported by some action on that of Parliament. Even if that were so, I do not think it would give rise to all those pressures from interested parties about which fears have been expressed. If the Commission had come to the conclusion that the exemption should be granted to a particular class of goods and if the President of the Board of Trade had given his approval, it seems very, unlikely that there would be any very large body of opinion in Parliament rising to object. Most of the speeches so far in these debates have indicated that the pressures come from those who want exemption and not from those who object to exemption. I do not think the point about pressures need be taken unduly seriously.
8.30 p.m.
A question may be asked as to the burden of proof. In my view, it would still be necessary for those applying for exemption to outline their case to the Commission. Once that was done, I think that the point about the burden of proof would not be of very great significance. It would be rather different from a case in a court of law. It would be rather more informal than an appearance in a court of law. Much of the feeling about the stigma falling on suppliers arises from the fact that it is a Court so which the matter has to be taken. It is this association with the idea of a Court which has aroused a good deal of feeling. I am surprised that those who have expressed these feelings have been satisfied with the Government s Amendments introduced earlier, since the burden of proof has remained unaffected. The guilt feeling is associated with a Court.

Mr. Shepherd: Do I take it that the Liberal Party is anxious to shift the burden of proof from those who seek to maintain these practices?

Mr. Wade: Anyone making an application would naturally have to state the grounds for the application. Once the case has been stated, I do not think that the problem of the burden of proof would be very important, because it


would be considered by the Commission and obviously the case would have to be stated first by the applicant. I do not think that the feeling of guilt would arise. One of the advantages is that there would not be the feeling of the guilty party going to court, being thought to be guilty before he was tried.
One other question which might be raised is as to the time factor. If the Commission were adequately staffed, applications could be dealt with not only fairly but very much more speedily than by the process of litigation before a court. It is true that there have been many delays where subjects have been referred to the Commission in the past, but these have been due partly to the nature of the reference, sometimes roving over a whole industry, partly to the curtailing of the size of the Commission, and often due to delay on the part of the Government after a report has been made by the Commission. I do not think this need arise in the procedure I have outlined.
Finally, I think it fair to say that the Commission has already built up a good deal of background information which could be valuable, whilst the Restrictive Practices Court will start with no precedents on this procedure and with no information on the wider considerations. Moreover, however distinguished and impartial the judges may be, the result of the application may vary according to the attitude of the particular judge. Even with the aid of expert advice, the judges themselves will be placed in a very difficult position in having to decide as a Court matters which are primarily social, political and economic.
It is for all these reasons that I believe that the procedure which I have outlined would be more appropriate from the point of view of the supplier, from the point of view of the retailer and, above all, from the point of view of the general public.

Mr. Shepherd: I will not stray into the Second Reading debate, although I, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), was not called. I should like to make one or two comments upon the rather remarkable suggestion which is put before the Committee. I will first deal with the question of the feeling of guilt. Surely the hon. Gentleman has

fallen foul of the propaganda which surrounds this issue. The man who goes to the Court, or even to the Monopolies Commission, to contest the view which has been forced upon him by the general presumption in the Bill is not the man who feels guilt. He is the man who believes that what he is doing is right. The man who feels guilt has to slink into a corner and cease from practising what he has done for a long time past. So, in the generally flabby attitude towards anti-monopoly practice which the Liberal Party now takes, let us have no nonsense about a feeling of guilt; that feeling of guilt does not rest on the man who goes to the Court and says, "I can justify what I have been doing in social, moral and economic terms."
I can see no reason for the Amendment except to obstruct the effectiveness of the Bill. Apart from that consideration, I think that the Amendment was played down, to use the expression common in my part of the world, because there is no instrument less likely to secure the purpose that we have in mind than is the Monopolies Commission. It is an effective though a very lengthy and laborious method if we seek to find out a number of details about which we are very uncertain, or do not even know about, but let hon. Members remember that we here have a clear presumption as to where the public interest lies, and we do not want long and devious excursions into the history of trade, or a determination about what constitutes safety in the sale of goods. We want to establish whether or not in the light of the criteria contained in Clause 5 Parliament's presumption has been met in a particular case.
What more unsuitable instrument could we conceive than the Monopolies Commission? It would take endless time—its record is about seven years for one inquiry. An even more serious difficulty, which the hon. Member did not deal with in any shape or form, is that the Commission has no powers. The literature on the subject is littered by recommendations of the Monopolies Commission that have not been carried out.
The only effective instrument to which the House of Commons has ever put its seal was when it said that collective boycotts should finish—stop. Then we


got something done. But here is this wretched Liberal Party trying to fritter away the efforts we are making to improve anti-monopoly legislation by saying that this issue must be determined by a body that has no power to carry out whatever it may wish to carry out.
A further difficulty is even more serious in practical terms than the considerations I have mentioned. When a determination is made by a court, the rest of those similarly affected are much more likely to decide what they will do on the basis of that legal determination. It we get a determination expressed in wholly social, political and economic terms by the Monopolies Commission, people similarly placed in respect of a given trade may say, "These considerations will not apply to us. We will stilt have a go." If it is a determination by a court, the issue is much more clear cut, and it is very likely indeed that the desirable result will be obtained—that people will say, "The Court has decided in those terms; we will cease to press our case." They have done that in many cases under the 1956 Act in respect of collective boycott and other things.
In that way, the suggested instrument is wholly unsatisfactory. It is even more unsatisfactory when we realise that we will be imposing on the Monopolies Commission new and urgent work—and I draw attention to the word "urgent". There is much work to be done in dealing with anti-monopoly legislation of all kinds. In that context the Monopolies Commission will be fully employed, and it would be grossly unfair and improper to those who will be otherwise affected to put further work on them.
A further point I quote with some diffidence, as it is not one that I would necessarily press. Those who have had the opportunity of witnessing the effects of both the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court—from what I might describe as the wrong end—have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the Restrictive Practices Court is the fairer. There is more satisfaction with the judgments of the Restrictive Practices Court. This is because of the existence of gentlemen with wigs

on their heads, which seems to confer a special brand of wisdom where it would not otherwise apply. Secondly, it applies to the procedures involved. In the case of the Monopolies Commission, one is not quite so sure what the evidence against one is and it is difficult to deal with evidence against one which is not necessarily disclosed.
Therefore, if one wants to be on the side, as the Liberal Party apparently wants to be, of the monopolists and operators of restrictive practices, the case is strongly in favour of letting these matters go before the Restrictive Practices Court rather than the Monopolies Commission.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, will strongly resist this nonsensical Amendment. I cannot conceive of any merit in its favour. The Restrictive Practices Court is obviously the proper instrument when we have made a determination of what we believe to be in the public interest. I urge my hon. Friend not to be led away by Liberal woolliness.

Mr. George Darling: I intervene not with any intention of restricting the debate, but to try to widen is within the scope of the Amendment. I do so because, in view of the line taken by my hon. Friends in the debates on the 1956 Bill, we should respond to the invitation given to us by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) to explain our present attitude to the question posed by the Amendment on the choice between the Commission or the Restrictive Practices Court.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West apologised for the large number of Amendment, which, he admitted, were put down to deal with a quite small point. Their. purpose is to transfer from the Restrictive Practices Court, as the Bill would provide, to the Monopolies Commission the duty of examining and reporting upon individual price-fixing arrangements and of recommending to the Secretary of State what action should be taken if any is recommended. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has said, this has proved in practice to be a slow and laborious procedure.

Mr. Wade: If the hon. Member had followed the Amendments—and I recognise that to study them all requires careful thought—he would find that the procedure would be as follows. If the Commission decided that a case was made for the continuance of resale price maintenance, the Commission would so recommend. All that would then be required would be approval by the Minister. It would then be effective.

Mr. Darling: That is true, but I am coming to the point, which, I believe, the hon. Member has overlooked, that before the Commission can do any of the things of which he has spoken, we have to bring into the House of Commons a Bill to transform the Monopolies Commission into the body that he wants it to be. We are all in favour of that, but to be practical we must consider the Amendments within the terms of the Bill.
Our approach is expressed in the words that the hon. Member himself used when, in Committee on the 1956 Bill, this issue arose. There was the question whether we should have an extended Monopolies Commission to deal with collective price agreements or whether we should accept the Government's proposals to set up a Restrictive Practices Court. On that occasion, after a great deal of consideration, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, in almost breathless words, told us that there were arguments on both sides.
This proposal to give the Monopolies Commission these additional duties is, as far as I can see, the Liberal Party's sole contribution to this Measure.

Mr. Wade: The hon. Member has not studied the Amendments.

Mr. Darling: I have done. In any case, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, has claimed for these proposals the virtue of consistency. He says that they are in line with the attitude which the Liberal Party took in the discussions on the 1956 Act. I hardly think that that is quite correct, and I will come back to that in a moment.
8.45 p.m.
When the present Bill first appeared my hon. and right hon. Friends considered carefully whether, bearing in mind the criticisms which we levelled against the idea of the Restrictive

Practices Court in 1956, investigation of resale price maintenance was still in our view a proper subject for the Monopolies Commission rather than for the Court, and for cogent and practical reasons we rejected the idea of handing over r.p.m. to the Monopolies Commission. We therefore did not put down Amendments similar to those which we put down on collective price fixing to the 1956 Bill.
The first obstacle to what would have been a consistent approach if we followed the 1956 line is the present character of the Monopolies Commission. We all know that the 1956 Act greatly weakened the Commission, as the Government themselves now admit. We know that with its present numerically weak membership and numerically inadequate staff the Commission could not possibly undertake the very wide duties which would be involved in dealing with individual r.p.m. with any hope of success. Indeed, in our view the Commission cannot properly carry out its present limited functions in examining trading monopolies and monopoly practices.
It is true, and we must not overlook it, that the Commission has had put to it a formidable backlog of proposals on which it does not even have any hope of starting for some years at its present rate of progress, unless the Commission is quickly and greatly strengthened and its procedures greatly improved and accelerated. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West gave some examples of the kind of social questions which he felt could be better dealt with by the Commission than by the Court. Safety and health were mentioned. We have taken the view for a long time that these questions of consumer protection would be better dealt with outside the scope of the Bill altogether. There are many angles of consumer protection which can be and ought to be dealt with by the modernisation of the Sale of Goods Act. There are other measures which need to be taken under the Merchandise Marks Act. I cannot develop them without being out of order.
But when we come to questions of health which involve standards, those standards must be laid down in quite different legislation. Some could be laid down under the 1961 Consumer Protection Act. The hon. Member for Huddersfield,


West gave the example of foot health, with which I thoroughly agree. This would have to apply to all footwear manufacturers and dealers. We think that the standards which would be involved in this matter are inappropriate for this kind of legislation. Even if I am wrong in that argument, and I do not think I am, I would say from experience that the Monopolies Commission could not deal with these questions any better than the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Wade: Can the hon. Member deal with a somewhat narrower point? Will he agree that the Restrictive Practices Court presumably can only make an order or not make one? In other words, it can say only "Yes" or "No", whereas the Commission could say, "We recommend the continuance of r.p.m. until certain ancillary matters of health have been dealt with". There would be more discretionary power, which I think the Court would not have.

Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Member, and he will see that we have tabled Amendments to enable the Court to exercise discretion in precisely the way he asks. I hope that those Amendments will be carried. But to add further duties to the Commission without strengthening it would simply mean that nothing could be done at all. We believe—I answer the point made by the hon. Member—that action is needed against price-fixing arrangements that are clearly not in the public interest. I do not, however, feel that we should gain anything at this stage by handing over the task to a body which has been so weakened by the Government that it could not effectively deal with it.
Although we reject the idea of handing over resale price maintenance to the Monopolies Commission, we do so—let me be perfectly clear about this—only in the terms of this Bill. If it had been possible to amend this Bill drastically so as to enlarge the Commission, increase its staff, improve its procedure and speed up its work, we could then have considered carefully whether the Court or the Commission was the right body to deal with individual resale price maintenance.
As things are we have no choice in the matter, and we strongly criticise the Government for not giving us a choice.

The Secretary of State—I agree again with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West—has got things the wrong way round. He has his order of priorities wrong. He should have tackled these monopolies and mergers first, and he should have strengthened the Monopolies Commission and given it the wider power we want much on the lines—although we could suggest improvements—of the White Paper. But the Secretary of State found it easier to attack the shopkeeping end of the problem. He has postponed the stronger action against monopolies and left it to another Government to take the action which, for reasons that have still not been explained, he seems reluctant to embark upon.
We have, therefore, in these circumstances, come to the conclusion, for the time being, at any rate, that until we can have a closer look at the experiences of the Restrictive Practices Court, and a strengthened Commission, the Court should be enlarged to deal with individual price fixing as well as collective agreements and practices. If we are accused of lack of consistency in this, because we took a somewhat different line in 1956, I should like to quote what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said in the debate on the 1956 Bill.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West argued the case for tribunals against the Court, or the Court against the tribunals, and on 12th April, 1956, he said, and I quote the final sentence of his summing up:
…I think that the right course is to create courts of law rather than tribunals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 451.]
Later we came to consider, as hon. Members who were then present will remember, the Government's proposal to truncate and weaken the Monopolies Commission. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and I were given the job then of trying to explain our views to the House. We did our best to make out a case—which the Government now accept—for extending and not reducing the Commission's work. I think that we made out a pretty, strong case, but it did not convince the Liberals.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West, on the 14th June, commenting on the arguments that we put forward for strengthening the Commission, said:
I really think that there is quite enough for the Commission to do in just looking at monopolies for the time being, without having to go into new kinds of practices to which this House has not yet given a great deal of thought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 814–5.]
Those were the collective price agreements.
Nevertheless, although the hon. Member for Bolton, West did not want the Monopolies Commission to deal with price fixing he and his colleagues thought it untimely then to reduce the scope of the Monopolies Commission, so he and his leader, the Leader of the Liberal Party, moved an Amendment to postpone the reduction of the Monopolies Commission, as proposed by the Government, for three years. Those three years are now over. They were over four years ago. So we assume that the Monopolies Commission is now in the state the Liberal Party wanted.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Oh, come, come.

Mr. Darling: Oh, yes. All they were asking for was that the Government should postpone the reduction in the size and scope of the Commission for three years. I do not know how the hon. Member thinks circumstances have changed since then, except that the Commission is now far less capable of dealing with price agreements than it was when the hon. Member argued that the Commission had quite a lot of work to do without being involved in price-fixing practices. The case now for giving the Commission new duties is much weaker and less convincing that it was when it was opposed by the hon. Member eight years ago.
Of course, we are all, the Liberal Party as well as anybody else, entitled to change our minds over a period of eight years—

Mr. Holt: Hear, hear.

Mr. Darling: —especially on issues which, at the start of the period, were quite clearly experimental.

Mr. Holt: Hear, hear.

Mr. Darling: The Government have changed their mind about the Monopolies Commission and they now confess their mistakes, and they admit that we were right that the Commission should not have been weakened. Well, we have changed our minds, too, to some degree, about the Restrictive Practices Court.
Our view originally was that it was the duty of Parliament and not of a court of law to decide which trading practices were in the public interest and which were not in the public interest, but we readily admit now that the Court and the registration procedure have worked out far better than we anticipated. I think that that will be generally agreed, even by the Liberal Party. At least the earlier decisions of the Court, in the view of my hon. Friends and myself—many of us, anyhow—were good, and were clearly taken after very careful examination of the facts in the public interest. We are not quite so happy about some of the later and more recent decisions. If I may put the issue in a negative kind of way I would say that we do not see anything in the Court's decisions or in the experience of the procedure of the Court itself which leads us to assert that the Court should not also deal with individual resale price maintenance.
But, of course, if the Court is to deal with individual as well as collective price maintenance the number of lay assessors will have to be increased. We cannot put an Amendment down to ask for an increase in the number of lay assessors because power already resides with the Lord Chancellor to do this, but I hope that we can get an assurance not only when we come to the appropriate Clause but at this stage that the lay assessors will be sufficient in number and good enough in quality to deal with the extra duties which are now by this Bill to be thrown on the Court.
Because in our view the Monopolies Commission in its present weak state cannot undertake these additional duties, we think that the Court is the proper body to which they should be assigned, but there is a reasonable argument for choosing the Court rather than the Monopolies Commission at this stage, and that is that the Court has had experience of examining price-fixing agreements. If it were not for Section 25 of


the 1956 Act the Court would have covered individual resale price maintenance as well. This experience, we think, is something that cannot lightly be thrown aside when we want to extend our attack upon price fixing to take in individual arrangements as well as collective arrangements.
9.0 p.m.
There is a further point, however. Within the terms of the Bill the main duty of the Court as we see it, particularly if our Amendments about the discretion of the Court are accepted, will be to ascertain the facts of the cases which it examines. It is in this examination of the cases and the publication of them that the Court in dealing with collective arrangements has proved to be invaluable. In this assessment and publication of the facts in individual arrangements, the Court will be equally successful and will work for the public interest.
But I repeat that we do not look upon the Bill as a final Measure imposed for all time. The next Government, which will be of a different character from the one we are dealing with today, will have to amend our anti-monopoly legislation and strengthen it. In doing so, it will have to reassess all our procedures and methods for dealing with monopolies and restrictive practices. We can say quite clearly that the next Labour Government will strengthen the Monopolies Commission and, I think, in the light of practical experience, will have to decide whether any complementary changes are needed in the scope of the Restrictive Practices Court. However, for practical purposes within the scope of the Bill and for the reasons that I have given, I am sure that the Committee will agree that we cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) of saying in an earlier debate that there is much to be said on both sides—or words to that effect—but the hon. Gentleman seemed to do exactly the same thing in the speech that he has just made. I may have misunderstood him, but, to sum it up, it seems to me that the hon. Member is really in favour of what the Liberal Party wishes to do but will not support

the Amendments because there is no provision for increasing the size of the Monopolies Commission. However, if the Government were to accept the spirit of what is contained in the Amendments there would be no difficulty whatever in making the necessary arrangements to increase the size of the Commission so that it could carry out its work.
I do not think that the rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks deserve any reply from me, but I should now like to say a few words about the remarks of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). The hon. Member for Cheadle cannot see a Liberal without trying to be rude about it. This is quite understandable, because in his constituency the Liberal candidate is breathing very warmly down his neck.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the phrase "a feeling of guilt", I would merely say that this is a phrase which has been most widely used by his hon. Friends. He said that the people who would go to the Court to ask for exemption were not people with a feeling of guilt. I feel that people who go to the Court, not having a feeling of guilt, to defend something which is presumed by an Act to be against the national interest go to the Court all the more incensed merely because they have to go to the Court to prove that what they think is perfectly proper procedure is, in fact, in the national interest. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has a valid point there.
The hon. Gentleman also deplored the idea that the Monopolies Commission has no power and that this in some way interfered with the bringing about of a more competitive climate. But he had the argument upside down. If the Commission has not any power to exempt people—which is to be the job of the Court under the Bill—then competition will be widespread.
The substance of our Amendment is that when a recommendation has been made it mist be approved or otherwise by the Board of Trade. This forces what we consider to be a politico-economic judgment back where it belongs—at the door of the Government. They must take the responsibility. We suggest an enlarged Monopolies Commission. The work which the present Court will take under this Clause will


affect only a very small part of the distributive trade and the suppliers dealing in r.p.m. The philosophy of the Bill as a whole and of this Clause in particular is clear. It is that competition is a good thing in itself and that the Government intend to make it extremely difficult for anyone to obtain exemption.

Mr. Winterbottom: Where is it suggested in any of these Amendments that there should be an enlarged Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Holt: It is not in this series, but there is no difficulty about that. If the Government accept the Amendment then they can take the necessary further steps.
Under subsection (2) exemption can only be obtained
…if it appears to the Court that in default of a system of maintained minimum resale prices applicable to those goods— 
(a) the quality of the goods available for sale, or the varieties of the goods so available, would be substantially reduced to the detriment of the public as consumers or users of those goods;
It has to be shown to be to the detriment of the public. But the end of the subsection states:
…and in any such case that the resulting detriment would outweigh any detriment to the public as consumers or users of the goods in question…resulting from the maintenance of minimum resale prices in respect of the goods.
That is a difficult hurdle for anyone trying to get exemption. Is it right to ask people to go to the Court to seek exemption when, in the vast majority of cases—perhaps 90 to 95 per cent.—the Court will refuse? I do not think that this is the way in which respect for a judicial system will be increased.
It has to be recognised that the whole tenor of the Bill is in favour of competition and that the number of exemptions will be very small. They may be important, but the number will be small. This kind of decision is far more appropriately left to a commission than to a court, to a commission whose job it is on behalf of the Government, which cannot go into every case, to see that competition rules. The Commission would merely examine special cases in place of the appropriate Government Departments. This is not something which is appropriate for a Court.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the hon Gentleman tell the Committee why he feels that there is a justiciable issue in connection with a collective boycott—and there is no dispute that there is a justiciable issue before the Restrictive Practices Court in respect of a collective boycott—but no justiciable issue in respect of individual price maintenance?

Mr. Holt: Because of the way in which subsection (2) is drawn. It is difficult to draw up a kind of balance sheet and to make a decision about when competition is good. These are borderline cases and I do not question that this is an extremely difficult subject. It would be simpler and it would save time and money if resale price maintenance were simply banned altogether. However, we know from the cases which have been already examined that there are sometimes special reasons for exemption. But only a very few cases have any likelihood of getting through the hoop, and those few cases can be examined more appropriately by a commission than by a court.
I hope that the Minister of State will be frank with the Committee and will give his own views on the subject and not endeavour to score party points, like the hon. Member for Cheadle. It is widely believed that the Board of Trade originally favoured what we are recommending to the Committee, and we would like to know why, on balance, it came down in favour of a court instead of an enlarged Monopolies Commission.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The argument of the two hon. Members of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), is not very compelling. I was not in the least surprised when the hon. Member for Bolton, West said that he would not answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), because the case made by my hon. Friend was completely unanswerable.
We must start from the position that we have a Restrictive Practices Court in operation. If we were starting with a blank sheet, some of us might have certain reservations about having any kind


of court to deal with matters of this kind. The Restrictive Practices Court has been operating since 1956, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, it has operated very much more successfully than many people thought it would when legislation was introduced to set it up.
The kind of issues which that Court has been deciding with regard to collective price maintenance agreements are precisely the kind of issues which it will have to decide with regard to individual price maintenance agreements under the terms of the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) was right. If it is right that the Restrictive Practices Court should deal with collective price maintenance, why is it not also right that it should deal with individual price maintenance?
If the hon. Member for Bolton had said that it was wrong that the Restrictive Practices Court should deal with collective price maintenance, I could have seen some element of logic in the Liberal Party's argument. The hon. Member for Bolton and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West have really been arguing for the complete abolition of that Court. It seems to me that we are dealing with parallel cases.

Mr. Wade: What about the net book agreement which was dealt with by the Monopolies Commission? Surely because of that precedent one could argue that it would be appropriate for the Monopolies Commission to deal with similar issues?

Mr. Millan: The net book agreement was dealt with by the Restrictive Practices Court and not by the Monopolies Commission. That seems almost to clinch the issue.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was wrong when he said that the precedents for dealing with these issues were in the hands of the Monopolies Commission and not in the hands of the Restrictive Practices Court. All the precedents are in the hands of the Restrictive Practices Court, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the differences in the kind of considerations which the Monopolies Commission has to take into account under the 1948 Act, and those which the Restrictive

Practices Court has to take into account under the 1956 Act.
In Section 14 of the 1948 Act public interest is defined in the most general and imprecise terms, but in Section 21 of the 1956 Act the presumptions as to the public interest are defined in terms which, although they are not the same as those in subsection (2) of this Clause, come a great deal nearer to it than do the terms laid down in the 1948 Act for the Monopolies Commission.
Irrespective of what some of us may have thought of the provisions of the 1956 Act, it seems to me that because of what his happened since then the Restrictive Practices Court is the obvious body to deal with questions of individual resale price maintenance. After all, his Clause deals with issues which, although difficult, are suitable to be dealt with by a court. Many of the conditions that have to be determined under subsection (2) are concerned with the establishment of facts. There may be some difficulty in weighing up the importance that one should attach to certain facts, but, after all, that is what courts do all the time. It is part of the function of a court to weigh up facts and deck e which arc the most important.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman is repeating something which ought to be corrected. Subsection (2) does not deal with facts at all. It deals with assumptions of what might happen in the event of certain other things happening.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to go through all the provisions of subsection (2), but it starts on the firm basis of establishing facts. One has to weigh up the importance and relevance of those facts, but in any case the intention of the Clause is that the Court should be concerned with the establishment of certain facts which are likely to have an effect or the abolition of resale price maintenance in certain circumstances.
This is very much related to the kind of thing which the Court has already been doing in respect of collective price maintenance under Section 21 of the 1956 Act. It may be that we are not all very happy about the exact terms of subsection (2) but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough


has said, we intend later to move Amendments to try to improve those terms to include precisely the points of safety and welfare which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West mentioned.
But even that will not give us an absolutely perfect subsection, because many matters will have to be dealt with in separate consumer protection legislation. If we can secure the acceptance of certain Amendments to the subsection, however, we shall be able to give sufficiently clear guide lines to the Restrictive Practices Court for it to be able to come to just conclusions on matters referred to it.
My final point concerns the question of the time factor and the relative powers of the Monopolies Commission and the Court. If some of us have been pleasantly surprised about the effectiveness of the Court—not only its direct effectiveness but the moral effect of its decisions upon other agreements which have not actually come to it—we have been correspondingly disappointed at the lack of effectiveness of the Commission.
This arises partly because the terms of reference are so general, and cover such a multitude of different factors, that the Commission inevitably takes a long time to come to any conclusions. But it also arises from the fact that the Commission is given not executive powers, but simply power to make recommendations. It is surely this, beyond anything else, which has made the work of the Commission ineffective over the last few years. Even when the Commission has made recommendations the Government have not always accepted them. This happened in the case of the Imperial Tobacco Company shareholding in Gallahers.
To accept the Liberal Party Amendments and replace the Restrictive Practices Court by the Monopolies Commission, with the Commission having power only to make recommendations, as distinct from the Court, with its power to make orders, would simply repeat the mistakes that we have seen occurring in the Commission's work under the 1948 Act.

Mr. Holt: The hon. Member misunderstands—as did the hon. Member

for Cheadle—the fact that the recommendation would be a recommendation to the Board of Trade for exemption. If, after hearing a case, the Commission did not make a recommendation for exemption, the practice of r.p.m. in that class of case would automatically have to cease.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member for Bolton, West did not listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West. His hon. Friend was pointing out that he did not want anybody simply to make a recommendation whether or not individual resale price maintenance should be maintained. The basis of his whole argument was that some of the decisions were so finely balanced, and that so many different qualifying factors had to be taken into account, that be wanted the situation dealt with by a body which would not give a straight "Yes" or "No" answer. That is precisely what he said. He wanted a body that would make recommendations with qualifications, taking account of all the relevant circumstances.
If we simply want the Monopolies Commission to make a recommendation, "Yes", or "No", it seems to me that the whole basis is even flimsier than has appeared so far from the arguments advanced in favour of the Amendments. I am saying that it is precisely because the Monopolies Commission has not had executive power to say "Yes" or "No" and to have an order made on the basis of its decision that there has been the weakness in monopoly legislation as it has worked out under the Commission since 1948. I hope that we shall not repeat that mistake and weakness by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am conscious that in supporting these Amendments I am flying against the interests of my own profession. I cannot think of a more fruitful field for legal cultivation than is provided by this Bill. I deprecate the tendency in present-day legislation to involve the judiciary in what are really political and economic decisions. By what stretch of the imagination can it be said that Clause 5 involves anybody in a judicial decision? It does not. What is asked for under the provisions of Clause 5 is an administrative decision within the ambit of this Bill.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred to the fact that earlier decisions of the Restrictive Practices Court had, I gathered, given him a greater pleasure—if that be the right term—or greater satisfaction than the later decisions. The reason may well be that in coming to a decision in the Restrictive Practices Court the judge himself is involved in an assessment of political economic considerations, and judges take different views of them. Some judges think it their duty to interpret political and economic developments in the country; others take the view that it is their duty simply to interpret the words of an Act of Parliament. I object to the continual process of getting judges to take a hard decision, to make a decision which ought to be taken by Parliament. This is what exactly is proposed.
The criteria for consideration here, particularly in subsection (2), are set out and must be interpreted. How are they to be interpreted? Their interpretation will depend largely, once the facts have been assessed, upon the inclination of the individual judge. It involves an assessment of political and economic matters which ought not to be placed on the shoulders of the judiciary.
Once we get the judiciary involved more and more in this kind of work, inevitably we shall get to the stage where the judiciary is far too involved in the political life of the country. It has always been the aim of our judges, so far as possible, to preserve neutrality in the great social and economic battles of our time. That neutrality is much more difficult to maintain the more they become involved by Parliamentary action in decisions of this kind.
The second reason why I think the Monopolies Commission is to be preferred is that it ought to be more effective for this kind of work. It is true that it needs to be enlarged. It has an enormous background of information. It has been involved in inquiries for many years. Proceedings before it can be much more informal and cheaper and they ought to be swifter. The Commission could put forward recommendations, but surely the eventual decision is a political decision and ought to be taken by the Secretary of State. Eventually the responsibility lies on his shoulders

and he ought not to shirk that responsibility by passing it on to a judicial body.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I do not always view Liberal proposals with disfavour, but I fail to see how this Committee under any circumstances can accept an Amendment to the Clause which brings in an institution such as the Monopolies Commission. on the assumption that the present Commission is recognised as ineffective but that if the Amendment is accepted we can assume that the Commission will be reformed.
I have known occasions in various Committees when this sort of proposition has been put forward on the assumption that when an institution is brought in there will be a reformation of that institution. The Government's White Paper recognises that the present Monopolies Commission is inadequate. It says:
their existing powers to implement recommendations Off the Commission are not adequate for the purposes these powers now have to serve.
It goes on to say:
The Monopolies Commission was enlarged in 1953 and empowered to work in groups. The size of the Commission was reduced in 1956.
Some of those powers
were transferred to the Restrictive Practices Court. It is now proposed to give the Commission new work on mergers and services.
The Commission's main function should be to examine the effect of the mergers and restrictive practices in a very wide field. Are we to take it that resale price maintenance is to be an all-embracing form of restrictive practice? I do not believe that it is. I believe it is a particular practice which in some cases is desirable and in some cases undesirable. No doubt there are many cases in which it could be justified.
I have listened to the argument, I hope with an open mind, but the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) confused me considerably. Unless I misunderstood him—and I am prepared to give way if I did—he said that it was impossible for. a body presided over by a judge to dea1 with hundreds of individual cases. He went on to suggest that those cases should go to the Monopolies.


Commission which, by another Amendment, should have to make recommendations to the Minister. So what the Restrictive Practices Court would find impracticable in judging hundreds of cases the poor Minister would have to do.
I was rather confused by the proposition that it would be almost impossible for the Court to judge hundreds of cases yet if the Monopolies Commission examined those cases and made a recommendation to the Minister it would not be difficult for the Minister to make a thorough examination. The Minister ought to make a further examination; he should not merely accept a recommendation, but should examine it. But the President of the Board of Trade would not only have his normal duties to perform; he would have closely to examine hundreds of cases recommended to him by the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Holt: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. My point about the large number of cases was that I thought it undesirable for there to come before the Court as distinct from any other body, a large number of cases most of which—it may be 95 per cent.—would inevitably be turned down by the Court. I did not think that that is the kind of thing in which the Court should be involved.

Mr. Bence: Whether people take their cases before the Monopolies Commission or the Court, they will do so with trepidation and apprehension. The hon. Member will agree that if a manufacturing institution is achieving certain benefits for itself by a certain practice—and presumably any manufacturer who is pursuing resale price maintenance is doing so for the benefits he gets out of it—then it should justify what it is doing. The Bill provides that the manufacturer shall show that what he is doing for his own economic reward is also in the national interest.
It is common tradition of the establishment for people such as General Motors to say that what is good for General Motors is good for the country. No doubt many people in this country, in all walks of life, believe that what is good for them is good for Britain. We

have had several examples of big businesses taking this view. In one case it was said that it was bad for Britain but good business for them. If manufacturers or traders adopt restrictive practices which are beneficial to them, then the onus is on them to prove—not merely to state, as General Motors did—before an appropriate institution that what they are doing is good for the general public.
I see no objection to that, and I am surprised that the hon. Member gave the impression—perhaps he did not intend to do so—that it would be difficult to get anything registered before the Court. We ought to make it difficult to get products exempted, and before this happens a full case ought to be made out that it is in the best interests of the nation. Surely that is a desirable objective. The hon. Member gave the impression that making it difficult was not desirable.
During the 13 years I have been in the House I have never shown a great affection for lawyers and judges and have never been over-partial to them, but I am not prepared to say that a judge is less competent in his assessments than some of the assessments which I have heard in my life made by professional economists. From 1919 to 1938 I read many papers—all through those dark and dreary years—by professional economists and none was ever right. Every one of their forecasts and estimates was completely wrong. Every year we were told that prosperity was round the corner, but when we got round the corner it was more depressing than ever before. I am not prepared to agree that a judge is less qualified to make a pronouncement on great national issues than is a professional economist.

Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Member think that judges are competent to make sensible pronouncements on such things as capital punishment?

Mr. Bence: This is a free country with a great liberal culture and tradition—with a small "I". It has developed and evolved at a far greater rate since the demise of the Liberal Party. Progress has been far faster in the last 40 years than it was in the previous 100 years. But it is a great tradition that although one may tease a creature when it is down, one may not kick it in the teeth.

The Chairman: Order. We seem to be getting rather a long way from the group of Amendments under discussion.

Mr. Bence: Yes, Sir William. With my liberal background I am liable to be free in debate.
I was dealing with the proposition of these cases being heard by the Monopolies Commission instead of by the Restrictive Practices Court. The White Paper says that the work of the Commission is already far greater than its constitution permits. It would be unreasonable to give it the extra work of registering exemptions from the Bill's effect.
Hon. Members have asked how the Court is competent to deal with the question of drugs and trading in general. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said that the wording of subsection (2) does not in any way postulate the obtaining of facts, but rather of trends. This is what everyone does all the time. Anyone charged with the task of considering these matters is not considering static facts as they exist. He is considering phenomena, movements, trends. It is splitting hairs to suggest that, because we have not immediate facts to contend with, these cases should go to the Commission.
I do not read the reports of many cases heard in the law courts, particularly reports in the News of the World, because I do not take that newspaper. However, I should imagine that judges have to investigate many matters outside the realm of facts. Many hypothetical postulations are made before judges by many witnesses. Consequently, I should have thought that judges are capable of making judgments on general trends. In view of the Report of the Lloyd Jacob Committee, which is an excellent report on monopolies and restrictive practices, it cannot be said that judges are incapable of making general judgments on the exemption of products, particularly drugs, from the effect of the Bill.
There is no reason why, when it comes to examining the justification of exempting drugs, judges should be any less competent to make such an assessment than professional economists, chartered accountants or engineers. Competency to make a judgment in such matters

depends rather on the character of those employed than on their professional qualifications I should never suggest that an expert in one subject is an expert in every subject, but I am not prepared to support the proposition that an expert in law is a fool in sociology.
That would be nonsense. A person who rises to the top of his profession should acquire as much natural intelligence about other aspects of human endeavour as other professional people. If our education system results in our being experts in one subject and fools in every other subject, there is something very wrong with our education system.
I stress the need to ensure that the Commission is strengthened. I do not say this because I approve of the Amendment, because I believe that it is out of p ace. It is very important to strengthen the Commission so as to get at the monopoly situation which has arisen, to watch the mergers and holding companies which are being created. and so on. There is competition between alternatives—plenty of that competition—but competition between like and like is completely disappearing. Manufacturers of similar products are just not competing with each other in price, and in some cases it is getting near to tin, point where they are not even competing in design.
9.45 p.m.
The strengthening of the Monopolies Commission to deal with mergers and monopolies is far more important than setting up a register of goods exempted from these provisions. There should be such a register, but I think that the Restrictive Practices Court is probably the right institution at this time to compile the register and give reasons for exemptions. Nevertheless, we are not tackling the right thing first. We should examine monopolies first, get at the manufacturers, the distributors, and so on, examine our company laws, the organisations of trade and manufacturing processes. If we had first done something about monopoly, we would probably have peen able to do a better job on price maintenance.

Mr. Lubbock: Listening carefully to this debate I have been struck by the fact that no hon. Members on this side of the Committee appear to have read the Bill properly. Nor do they appear


to have read the list of Amendments. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said that we were dealing with the only Amendments in the names of my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends and myself, but if he were to turn to page 2389 of the Notice Paper he would find that we have another Amendment down. However, I should be out of order if I pursued that point.
I found the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) most inconsistent. On the one hand, he wants the Monopolies Commission to perform all the extra duties that will be laid on it when we implement the White Paper on Monopolies, Mergers and Restrictive Practices. That cannot be done soon enough for me. I should like it done in this Session if it were possible, and I hope the hon. Member will support my party in its endeavour to persuade the Government to use the remaining Parliamentary time for this purpose. In the next breath, however, the hon. Member says that it is impossible for the Commission to carry out the duties he would like it to do under the Bill.
It has been said that the Commission has not functioned well in the past. That criticism is entirely irrelevant to the duties we lay on it under the Bill. Of 21 recommendations made by the Commission, only three have been accepted, and it is not fair of hon. Members on this side to criticise the Commission for failing to do something that is really the Government's responsibility. Criticisms of the effectiveness of the Monopolies Commission in carrying out its functions under other Acts are not relevant to this discussion of the Bill or of the duties that would be laid on the Commission if our Amendment were accepted.
I should like to reinforce what I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in an intervention, which is that he and his hon. Friends seem quite incapable of understanding that in Clause 5(2) we are not dealing with facts but with hypotheses. As I obviously did not manage to explain myself to him satisfactorily, I will draw his attention to the paragraphs in subsection (2). Paragraph (a) reads:

…the quality of the goods available for sale, or the varieties of the goods so available, would be substantially reduced…
We are therefore not talking about the present quality or variety, but about what might happen to quality or variety on the assumption that resale price maintenance were or were not abolished. Similarly, subsection (2,b) uses the words
the number of establishments in which the goods are sold by retail would be substantially reduced…
We are not talking about the number of establishments in which these goods are sold. We all know that in some retail trades the number of establishments is diminishing without the operation of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has told me of an instance in his constituency where there used to be three chemists in a small town and now there is one. The limitation of the retail outlets has been taking place since the war without the aid of the Bill.
We are talking about how the Court or the Monopolies Commission will view the likely effect of the abolition of r.p.m. in a given area. My point—and I hope that the hon. Member for Craigton has swallowed this now and that his hon. Friend, who also said that we were concerned with facts, has done the same—is that we are concerned not with facts, but with hypotheses. This is one of the main reasons why we think that the Commission, and not the Restrictive Practices Court, is the right body to deal with this matter.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): We have certainly had an agreeable debate, not least because on four separate occasions we have had no less than six-sevenths of the Liberal Party present. It was not always quite the same six-sevenths, but we are pleased to see them and glad to know of their Russian habit, even as exemplified by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), of applauding themselves.
We have had four speeches in favour of the Amendments from the Liberal Party and four speeches in the contrary sense. We have had an admirable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and equally,


from the Liberal point of view, devastating speeches from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).
It is plain that the feeling of the Committee is strongly against the Amendments for a substantial variety of reasons Perhaps I would be right in summing up the speeches so far made and the general atmosphere of the debate by saying, to cap something that was said by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, that it is plain that the opinion of the Committee is that what is right for the Liberal Party is not necessarily right for Great Britain.
As the hon. Member for Hillsborough clearly pointed out, we are accustomed to the Liberal Party changing its mind. Certainly, those of us who travel about the country are accustomed to it, and in relation to the Bill we have certainly seen examples of that. Members of the Liberal Party voted in favour of the Bill on Second Reading and yet the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) almost Shed crocodile tears in describing the Bill as a hard one. I should like to know what the Liberal Party really wants. I hope that some time—it may be when we come to their other Amendment on the Notice Paper—it will be good enough to make its views plain.

Mr. Hooson: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me when the Conservative-Labour coalition is to be sealed?

Mr. du Cann: I do not think that it will be sealed at any time. In any event, we shall not need the services of the reverend Liberal Party to assist at any ceremonies which take place. Indeed. to cap something that was said during the debate, if there is a healthy Liberal disgustingly breathing down the neck of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, I hope that when the right moment comes he will turn and with a puff blow that fellow away.
The effect of the Amendment which we are principally discussing would, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough pointed out, be to substitute the Monopolies Commission for the Restrictive Practices Court as the tribunal for dealing with applications concerning exemption. Other Amendments—there are a substantial number of them and we

should take them seriously—tabled by the same hon. Members provide for the Commission only to make recommendations which would have no effect until confirmed by the President of the Board of Trade.
As consequentials, the Amendments which we are discussing include the deletion of Clause 9—not an additional Amendment, but the same part of the same series—which is the Clause permitting the appointment of additional judges. The Liberal Party has tabled the new Clause No. 5 increasing the maximum number of the Monopolies Commission to 25 and permitting them to work it groups. In addition, there are some consequential Amendments on the same scheme. There is a total of 24 Amendments in all.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, said that he hoped that I would not propose to pick holes in the drafting. I certainly would not. I propose to attempt to deal with the argument. He also asked whether the Lord Privy Seal had had a change of mind. As the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) so plainly pointed out, it is the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of thy; Board of Trade who is in charge of the Bill. Wrong again! As far as I am aware, there has been no change of mind whatsoever, as I hope to demonstrate shortly.
To answer the points made by those Members of the Liberal Party who entertained us this evening, it is necessary to examine again the principles which the Government had in mind in introducing the Bill. The Government are of the opinion in general, for reasons which my right hon. Friend stated very clearly on Second Reading, that r.p.m. is not in the public interest. The effect of r.p.m. in general is to maintain prices at higher levels than might exist without it and to inhibit competition in the development of new trading methods.
To answer particularly the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West—and I make common cause here with the hon. Member for Hillsborough—the Bill deals with r.p.m. The arguments for and against r.p.m. range widely, as we have learned in the course of these discussions. Essentially, they are economic in character. To bring in completely extraneous


matters relating to social consequences would inevitably make the exemption procedure very much more complex and possibly more lengthy and would not necessarily do full justice to those economic considerations which are basic.
On the point of social legislation to which the hon. Member referred, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough said we have separate social legislation on a very wide range of matters. We are discussing in the House at present a particularly important Measure in connection with consumer protection. We believe that it is right to keep these matters separate. The Government have proposals to bring forward as part of the running tide of these policies which will deal with certain of the ideas that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West has in mind. I would not promise him that foot health was among them, though I thought it ironic that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) should have come into the Chamber at that moment.
But having come to this basic conclusion about the fact that r.p.m. is not in the public interest, the need thereafter, as I think the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West agrees, is to afford those suppliers who maintain that r.p.m. in respect of particular goods is in the public interest an opportunity if they wish to justify it. I was rather taken by something that the hon. Member was in the course of saying. We take the view, and the official Opposition take the view, that r.p.m. its either right or wrong. It cannot be half-right as the hon. Member suggested.
I am sure that the hon. Member will accept from me that we gave careful consideration to the question of the most appropriate procedure for dealing with this matter. We believe it right that Parliament should lay down the principles which are to be applied. The specific criteria by which applications for exceptions are considered are delineated in Clause 5. We shall have to satisfy ourselves in Committee that we have chosen the right criteria. At hearings before the Restrictive Practices Court all the arguments can be stated on behalf of the interested parties, the suppliers predominantly.
The Court will have in front of it, as the hon. Member for Craigton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle pointed out, clearly defined justiciable issues. This is the most important answer to the general case which the Liberal Party is advancing. Parliament will not be placing on the Restrictive Practices Court a responsibility for surveying the whole field of resale price maintenance, but considering its operation in relation to particular trades in the fairest way possible.

Mr. Holt: How does the hon. Gentleman make out�ž�ž

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Resale Prices Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Prime Minister.]

RESALE PRICES BILL

Again considered in Committee

Question again proposed.

Mr. Holt: I was in the middle of asking the Minister, who was talking about the Restrictive Practices Court having a justiciable issue in front of it, how he makes out that, when the Court considers, as it will have to under subsection (2,a,b,c),
the detriment of the public as consumers or users
it can then, before arriving at a decision, compare that detriment with
in any such case that the resulting detriment would outweigh any detriment to the public as consumers or users …resulting from the maintenance of minimum resale prices…
Surely that is not a justiciable issue at all.

Mr. du Cann: I am myself entirely clear that there is no difficulty, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am so advised. Indeed, in our view not only does the Restrictive Practices Court offer the most satisfactory method of procedure, but, as my hon. Friend the


Member for Cheadle so rightly said, it is also the fairest method of procedure.
The application of specific criteria to the particular facts of any case is primarily a legal exercise for those judges of the Court assisted by the lay members�ž and I will say a word about them in just a moment. That is to say, a hearing before a judicial tribunal with opportunities for retailers to be represented either singly or collectively will provide, we believe, the most satisfactory procedure.
On the point of lay assessors, the comment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough is noted. I certainly agree that they should be or a sufficient number and of a sufficient quality. We are in no doubt about that in our minds whatsoever. I should like to make that clear to him.

Mr. Darling: It is perfectly clear, is it not, that under the 1956 Act the powers are there for the increase in the numbers, and that nothing more needs to he done in this Bill—provided we gel an assurance, which the hon. Gentleman has given us?

Mr. du Cann: Yes. To be entirely clear, and I wish to be as clear as possible, we are certainly clear that additional lay members will have to be appointed to the Court when it is given responsibility, if Parliament in its wisdom sees fit to pass this legislation, to deal with r.p.m. As the Committee knows, and as the hon. Member indicated, both in his intervention and earlier in his speech, this does not require legislation. It can be done by Order. So we see no problem there, and we certainly have his point in mind.
I am sure that the Committee will feel it is of the highest importance that suppliers who seek to justify r.p.m. as being in the public interest before any tribunal should be entirely clear as to the criteria by which they are judged—again, a point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Craigton was making. This is certainly what the Bill provides. It must be right that legal argument as to whether or not the circumstances of an individual trade fall within the criteria to be heard and judged by an impartial judicial tribunal. In a word, if there is substance in the arguments for keeping r.p.m. they can

be put to the Court appointed properly and fairly to assess them.
The Government, therefore, as will be understood from what I have been saying, deliberately chose the judicial procedure embodied in the Bill so as to remove price resale maintenance from the political arena. What I was unable to understand was the remark by the hon. Member for Bolton, West during the Second. Reading debate, in column 334, that basically, under the provisions of the Bill the ultimate decision will still be a politico-economic decision. He repeated that this evening. It was also said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, and repeated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), whose speeches we always enjoy.
The answer to that point, and that outlook, as it were, is surely this. We believe it would be most unsatisfactory if applicants who had failed to satisfy the tribunal could then have, as it were, a second opportunity to argue the case by appealing to the Minister not to confirm the tribunal's recommendation. That would I turn it into a highly politico-economic matter, if not an entirely political one.
I appreciate what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West said, that he is not proposing that a separate Order should be laid before the House on each occasion. But that would not necessarily avoid Questions or debates in Parliament. If we adopted the procedure which the Liberal Party is suggesting, the atmosphere about decisions would be infinitely more highly politically charged. The whole purpose which the Liberals are seeking to achieve is negatived by the effect of their own Amendments.

Mr. Wade: I do not think that the hon. Gen leman appreciates the procedure at all. If the Commission decided that a case was not made out, that would be the end of the matter. If it recommended that resale price maintenance should be allowed to continue, it would require the approval of the Minister. It is not a question of a second opportunity, now do I think that it would raise political issues.

Mr. du Cann: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he may be right in attempting, so to speak, to narrow the


total number of cases—I do not deny what he is saying—but to suggest that Ministers would not be bombarded with letters and Questions in the House of Commons is to be more naive than usual.
At all events, for these reasons the Government were satisfied in 1956 that it was right to adopt the judicial procedure for dealing with restrictive agreements. "Invaluable" was the word used by the hon. Member for Hillsborough in respect of the work that has been carried out so far. Although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has some reservations about the whole structure, nevertheless he has been led to use that term, which is correct.
We are satisfied that the same procedure is now necessary for resale price maintenance. Now, as then, we think it right that the general principles by which the tribunal will be guided should be debated in Parliament, and thoroughly debated, before legislation is passed. But the application of the principles to the facts of particular situations is an entirely different matter. This is the point the Liberal Party has not begun to get hold of even as the debate has proceeded.
This, in our opinion, should be committed to an independent judicial body in a position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle so clearly and rightly pointed out, to make its decisions effective. That is what will count ultimately. It certainly would be true to say that experience of the Court's operations since 1956 shows that issues of the sort that it will have to determine under the Bill—this is the answer to the whole argument of the Liberal Party—are highly susceptible to judicial decision.
In those circumstances, and for the reasons which have been advanced by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee as well as by myself in concluding this debate, I hope that, unless the Liberal Party, in its wisdom and good sense, sees fit to withdraw this series of Amendments, the Committee will not accept them.
I have one final point to make. It is not strictly relevant to the Amendment, bat it is something which has been raised during the debate on more than one occasion, particularly by the hon. Members of the Liberal Party—the ques-

tion of making what one might almost call Second Reading speeches. We have been asked why we put shopkeepers first. It is not a question of our having put them first. The Bill is part of a whole package of Measures. We legislated on monopolies years before this Bill came up. If the Liberal Party has not got hold of that it has not got hold of anything—which I suspect to be the case.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I remember years ago when Oscar Wilde, faced by Carson in cross-examination—[Laughter.]—there are some hon. Members who remember things they have read and do not physically have to seek things in order to remember them. Wilde told Carson, "You will cross-examine with all the bitterness of a former friend." The Minister of State speaks with all the bitterness of the son of an unsuccessful Liberal candidate and I can sympathise with him in his predicament [Interruption.] At least that appears to have woken up the party opposite.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman has made a somewhat unjustified personal reference to my father. He is as well aware as I am that my father left the Liberal Party, for good reasons which I can particularise if the hon. Gentleman wishes, many years ago. My father stood as a Conservative Parliamentary candidate. He has been a member of the Conservative Party for many years and is now, although well over 70, a Conservative councillor. He is also a former Conservative mayor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take the matter too far. He is quite wrong, as usual.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Thorpe: Such is my respect for the Minister of State's father that I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have pushed all the opprobrium, specifically and rightly, in my view, directed at him, on to his father's shoulders. That, coming from the hon. Gentleman, is like Satan rebuking sin.
It is a new departure to see a formidable and closely knit Conservative—Labour coalition on this matter. It is hardly the first time that the Liberals have found themselves opposed by both the major parties in this House, although


usually, after a time-lag of a year or 18 months, we find one of them coming to our point of view. [Interruption.] I remember one occasion when my eardrums were nearly split by the horror of the party opposite at my suggestion that we should apply to join the Common Market.
The Minister of State is anxious to have clarity in our arguments. He asked why the Liberal Party voted for Second Reading and why my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) criticises certain of the Bill's general principles. This constituted, in the hon. Gentleman's view, a change in the views of the Liberal Party, the implication being that to change is something wholly wrong in politics and to be deplored.
We voted for Second Reading because we wanted to make it plain—unlike the Labour Party, which abstained, like a collection, of political eunuchs—that we wished to place on record that we were in favour of the Bill and its general principles. But in voting for Second Reading obviously we reserved our right to try to amend the Bill as we saw fit in Committee.
There is nothing illogical about that. What was illogical was the attitude of the Labour Party in abstaining, although it was, in general principle, in favour of the abolition of r.p.m. It hoped thereby to gain some backwash of support from those flagrantly opposed to abolition. The action of the Liberal Party is not only far more logical than that of die Labour Party, it is decidedly more honest.
10.15 p.m.
The reason why we are proposing this Amendment is that on this occasion we support to the full the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of judges being employed by the Government to carry out purely political decisions. So strongly did the Government react to this, that they had to send the Lord Chancellor—which in itself is quite a task of dispatch—all the way to Germany to answer the Leader of the Opposition. It was an interesting experience to see that when he was outside territorial waters, he saw fit to suggest that the Leader of the Opposition had made an attack on the judiciary. In fact, the

Leader of the Opposition had done no such thing. What he had said was that the judiciary ought to be allowed to decide exclusively judicial and legal matters and should not be drawn into the maelstrom of politics.
That was why many of us in the House of Commons, particularly those of us who are lawyers, have been horrified to see the growing practice of appointing distinguished High Court judges and words of Appeal in Ordinary to sit in judgment on matters which did not implied legal points, which did not involve legal decisions, but which are purely political and which are matters which should more appropriately be within the jurisdiction and discretion of Ministers, who would thereby have Ministerial responsibility for their decisions.
That is why we take the view that when one is assessing the quality of goods available for sale, or the variety of goods available for sale, or the number of establishments in which those goods are sold, or any necessary services which are provided in connection with them, it is not a legal matter, not a matter for judges sitting in court.
As my hon. Friends have said, this is a political-economic argument. It is these arguments which must be canvassed by those who seek to benefit from the excepting powers of the Bill. If and in so far as it is a political-economic argument, it is for the Minister to take the final decision. It is not a question which the Minister can duck. There is a great proclivity in the present Government to push off unpopular decisions on to the judges of the day.
Therefore, those who are in favour of the Amendment—and I understand that the Labour-Conservative coalition will be solidly united in this matter, so that one cannot hope for much progress in that quarter—those who remain, have before them the clear argument as to whether a political-economic decision should be placed on the shoulders of judges, or on the shoulders of the Commission with the ultimate responsibility resting on the Minister of the day. There is no doubt whatever which is the more correct course.
I hope that, apart from the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)—that


would be too much to hope—the Committee will deal with the argument seriously and on its merits and not treat it as if it were some odd, trumped-up idea of the Liberal Party which suddenly decided that it must put down some Amendments to the Bill. Our Amendments were the first to be tabled and certainly the most detailed in number to come before the Committee.
The logical extension of rejecting the Amendment is that all political, quasilegal, but chiefly political, decisions would be pushed off to a judicial authority. This would be like submitting planning appeals to a High Court or county court judge, whereas they are political-economic decisions and therefore more properly appropriate to the Minister of the day. We are delighted—and I say this quite genuinely—to see the Prime Minister in his place showing his interest in the Bill. The Liberal Party will continue to move Amendments if this desired effect can be repeated.
The Amendment seeks not only to protect the integrity of the judiciary who have been asked to do some wrong and inappropriate jobs—and usually dirty jobs—by the Government, but to maintain their independence and integrity. Its purpose is also to ensure that the citizen, in trying to gain an exception for what is essentially an economic and political decision, shall be able to appear before the correct forum, and that ultimately the Minister will be there as a court of appeal because it is the Minister and his Government who have brought in this Measure, and it is the Government of the day who should give their final sanction and enforce this Clause.

Mr. Wade: What is right for the Liberal Party evidently is not right for

a coalition of Conservatives and Socialists.

In 1956, there was a debate on the proposal to set up an administrative tribunal. I recollect that very well, but I regard it as completely irrelevant. I am not advocating a new administrative tribunal, and I think that the arguments put forward at that time do not apply to the case that I have been making tonight.

The Minister of State referred to the danger of bringing in extraneous matters, but I think that he has missed the point. The Court may be faced with a real dilemma, and the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite have tabled Amendments to the Clause is evidence of that. Having heard all the arguments, the Court may well consider that there are questions of safety and health which should be taken into account, but it may not be able so to do. It will have to say "Yes" or "No" to the application. It will have no discretionary powers. It will not be able to make a recommendation deferring abolition until these questions of health and safety have been dealt with.

That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it could have been overcome by accepting the proposals in these Amendments. I think that it would be a great mistake to add to the number of criteria. The Bill is complicated enough already. Our proposals would provide a reasonable solution to the problem, which is a very real one, and I am sorry that they have not been accepted.

Question put, That "Restrictive Practices Court" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 5.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[10.24 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bingham, R. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Allason, James
Bishop, Sir Patrick
Campbelt, Cordon


Amery, Rt. Hon. JuNan
Blaok, Sir Cyril
Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)


Atking, Humphrey
Bossom, Hon. Clive
Cary, Sir Robert


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Bourne-Arton, A.
Chataway, Christopher


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Box, Donald
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Barter, John
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Cleaver, Leonard


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Berkeley, Humphry
Brewis, John
Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Corfield, F. V.


Bidgood, John C.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Coulson, Mlohael


Biffen, John
Buok, Antony
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Billiard, Denys
Critohley, Julian




Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Curran, Charles
Iremonger, T. L,
Proudtoot, Wilfred


Cumie, G, B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson, Eric (Blackiey)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, 8.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Doughty, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshatton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roots, William


Eiliott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (wirral)
Sharpies, Richard


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, M.


Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.
Shepherd, William


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Smith, Dudley (Br'nt'd A Chiswick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soamess, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Gammans, Lady
Maciay, Rt. Hon. John
Stanley, Hon Richard


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute amp; N. Ayrs)
Stodart, J. A.


Gibson-Watt, David
MacLeod, Sir John (Ross amp; Cromarty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Srudholme, Sir Henry


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer


Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mahon, Simon
Temple, John M.


Gower, Raymond
Maltland, Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marpies, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Cantertbury)


Green, Alan
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)
Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus (Stnatford-on-Avon)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Turner, Colin


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvle Anderson, Miss
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, William
Vane, W, M. F.


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey
Walker, Peter


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Wall, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L, P. S.
Whlbetaw, William


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wise, A. R.


Hohson, Rt. Hon Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hocking, Philip N.
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.
Woodhouse, C. M.


HollingWorth, John
Pearson, Frank (Clicheroe)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hopkins, Alan
Percival, Ian
Woollam, John


Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth



Hughes Hallett. Vice-Admiral John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, Sir James
Mr. Pym and Mr. More.


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pounder, Rafton





NOES


Bowen, Roderio (Cardigan)
Hooson, H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Thorpe, Jeremy
Mr. Wade and Mr. Lubbock.


Holt, Arthur

The Chairman: In calling the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) to move Amendment No. 56, may I say that it will also be possible to discuss Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59, 64 and 66.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 34, after "class", to insert "or any goods".
This Amendment echoes part of the discussion which we have just had on the preceding Amendment, to the extent that it seeks to give a discretion to the Restrictive Practices Court in coming to its decisions, which the Bill as at present drafted would not seem to grant to the Court.
What is involved in the Amendment can probably best be followed by the Committee if reference is made to Clause 6, which describes the procedure which is to be followed to bring applications for exemption before the Court. It will be seen that Clause 6(1) provides that a supplier
may give notice to the Registrar in respect of goods of any description
that he wishes to have them referred to the Court.
Under subsection (3) of Clause 6 it becomes the duty of the Registrar to
publish lists of the classes of goods in respect of which
he has had notices. It will be seen in subsection (4):
the Registrar may combine or divide the goods in respect of which notice is given to him under this section into such classes as appear to him to be appropriate for that purpose, and may refer classes of goods to the Court in such order as he may determine.
We shall, therefore, have the possibility of a number of applications for the same type of goods coming to the Registrar and the Registrar grouping those goods into classes which seem to be him appropriate. The Court will then consider each of those classes in turn as they come before it.
The object of this Amendment is to provide that if the Court, having heard the applications in respect of a class of goods, comes to the conclusion that part of the goods in that class could properly be exempted whereas other goods put

temporarily into that class by the Registrar could not qualify for exemption, it will be possible for the Court, instead of making a decision in relation to the whole class, to give a decision in relation to the goods in that section of the class which in the opinion of the Court should have that exemption.
It seems proper that the Court should have this discretion because it is possible to conceive of two manufacturers of goods of the same class having their cases brought together before the Court by the Registrar yet the cases of the two manufacturers being different. One example might be of a manufacturer in a virtually monopoly position. The Court might well decide in his case that it would not be desirable to grant him and his goods exemption whereas there might be other cases coming before the Court at the same time in respect of which the Court might feel it desirable to grant exemption.
I have put this Amendment down to clarify this point and in the hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury can say that the power resides in the Court at the moment, as may well be the case, or otherwise that it is desirable power to give to the Court and that he would be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has said, because I think it very necessary to have made clear what this Clause means.
If it is the duty of the Registrar to band a particular type or class of goods together, the Court should have the power to deal with those goods separately if it so desires. If the present wording of the Bill is that once the Registrar has decided that a particular class of goods has to go before the Court together and the Court has to make its decision one way or the other on that class, it is giving to the Registrar a duty which should properly fall on the Court. If that, in fact, be the wording of the Bill, I support the Amendment so that the goods could be divided into different classes and one manufacturer could be exempted while another was not. I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to give an explanation.

Mr. du Cann: I am obliged, as I am sure is the Committee, both to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir C. Doughty) for drawing our attention to this point, and I am glad to have the opportunity to afford the Committee a short explanation If we could divide these Amendments from the point of view of explanation into two groups, I hope that that might be convenient to the Committee.
The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney made and which my hon. and learned Friend endorsed related to the first three—No. 56, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, No. 57, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown) and No. 58, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews). Their object, as explained, is simply to enable the Court to grant exemption to goods of a more limited class than that to which the reference relates. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney said that that power ought to reside in the Court; he hoped that his Amendment was unnecessary and that the Bill provided for this.
I am advised that the words in Clause 5(1), in line 33 of page 4:
by order direct that goods of any class specified in the order
are quite appropriate for enabling the Court to do this. I can give my hon. Friends a categorical assurance that the three Amendments which they have been good enough to put down on this point are unnecessary and that no further provision whatever is needed. I am entirely clear about the matter.
Reference has not been made to Amendments Nos. 59, 64 and 66, but I should say a short word about them. They are designed to add the words "or classes" after references to "a class" in Clause 5. Similarly, I owe an explanation to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), although he has been good enough not to go into the matter in detail. I am advised that these Amendments are equally unnecessary and that under the Interpretation Act, 1889, with which I suspect my hon. Friends are more familiar than I am, the singular includes

the plural unless the context otherwise requires. I am further advised that there is no thing in the context here which would "otherwise require" and that when tie Clause refers to a class it includes, by implication, references to classes.
I am in the uniquely happy position, I hope, of thoroughly satisfying my hon. Friends, which I always wish to do. A little earlier we may all, among ourselves, have discomfited the Liberals, which is always a worthy thing to do. I hope that my hon. Friends will be good enough to accept my assurance and that their will see their way to taking a certain course, in which case the Committee can pass to other matters.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very courteous and clear explanation of our Amendments as well as of what the Clause means as it stands, but I still have a little doubt about the matter. Under Clause 6(4) the Registrar fixes the class, and the doubt is whether he fixes it once and for all and it has to go on as that clans throughout the proceedings. It is true that in Clause 5(1) there is a reference to "goods of any class", but the doubt which we had was whether that "any class" was a class already fixed by the Registrar under Clause 6(4) which could not be altered by the Court as the proceedings went on.
I understand my hon. Friend to say that it could be altered by virtue of these words, but I wonder whether, on consideration, he might feel that it could be made yet clearer, in Clause 5, that the Court has the power to change the class which has already been fixed by the registrar.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: I will certainly look closely at what my hon. Friend has said. I do not think that this is a point of dificulty, but if I thought that it might prove to be so I would certainly propose putting down an Amendment on Report to resolve the difficulty. However, I do not think that the difficulty exists.

Sir H. Linstead: In the light of the very clear explanation my hon. Friend has given, and particularly of his offer to look at the whole point again between


now and the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 34, after "order", insert:
(being goods of which particulars are entered in the register kept in accordance with those provisions)".—[Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, Amendment No. 69, in page 5, line 7, at the end to insert:
(a) the public as purchasers, consumers or users of any goods would be deprived of some specific and substantial benefit or advantage enjoyed or likely to be enjoyed by them as such, whether by virtue of the system of maintained minimum resale prices applicable to the goods of the class in question or by virtue of any arrangements or operations resulting there from; or

The Chairman: With this Amendment may be taken Amendments Nos. 75, 80, 85, 94, 101, 111, 112, 113 and 191.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Sir William. I understand that Amendment No. 71 has also been selected. Its principle is very much the same as that in Amendment No. 69, so I wonder whether it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss it at the same time?

The Chairman: If the Committee is so agreeable, I have no objection to that course being taken.

Mr. Turton: In the Second Reading debate, Sir William, I said:
It seems essential that the same criteria used in the 1956 Act should be here in this Measure. At least they should not be narrower than they are in the 1956 Act.—[OFF1cLAL REPORT, 10th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 337.]
That is my purpose in moving this Amendment.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was speaking on the Bill at Swansea on 20th January, he said:
We have now decided to end resale price maintenance where it acts against the public interest. There may be cases—there probably are—where resale price maintenance can be shown to be in the national interest. Our legislation will provide machinery so that when this is proved to be so the practice can go on.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, in his statement to the House on 15th January on this subject, said:

The Government believe that this practice is, in general, incompatible with their objective of encouraging effective competition and keeping down costs and prices. They have reached the conclusion that resale price maintenance should be presumed to be against the public interest unless in any particular case it is proved to the contrary to the satisfaction of a judicial tribunal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 225.]
Yet, in the Bill as at present drafted, there is no criterion that is the broad public interest.
The Amendment seeks to put into the Bill the definition of what is in the public interest as laid down by the Government in the 1956 Act. At that time, the present Minister of Defence, in dealing with the criterion quoted in my Amendment from Section 21(1,b) of the 1956 Act, said:
Whether they are common prices or collective discrimination or the rest of it, they are presumed to be against the public interest. It is important to realise that these separate paragraphs are not a final answer in this matter. They define an argument which could be admitted before the Court, and what paragraph (b) says is that someone who is engaged in a restrictive practice may go to the Court, not to say that it benefits him—that is not permitted in this paragraph at all—but that the removal of the restriction would deny to the public, not even the general public, but
'to the public as purchasers, consumers or users of any goods other specific and substantial benefits or advantages enjoyed or likely to be enjoyed by them as such, whether by virtue of the restriction itself or of any arrangements or operations resulting therefrom'. 
To deny that argument to someone who has a restriction would be an extraordinary state of affairs. I cannot imagine any tribunal, whether a court, a lay tribunal or a commission, or anything else, which would not at least admit the man to place in front of it an argument in support of that contention."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 623.]
It is important that those who wish to argue the case that their resale price system is in the public interest should have full liberty to do so before the Restrictive Practices Court. As the Bill is drafted, that is not done.
In the Bill, my right hon. Friend has no broad general gateway of defining the public interest. What he has done is to define three narrow gateways of specific public interest dealing with quality or variety, the number of establishments and the reduction of necessary services. That does not deal with the kind of arguments that will be adduced


before the Court by many interests. Two specific arguments which are left out and which are of great importance are price and, secondly, the general service which is given—not necessarily services, but the general service given by a dealer to a customer.
To see how the 1956 gateway has been applied, I should like to refer to the net book agreement. The proceedings on that agreement under the 1956 Act were the one case in which it had to be judged whether a resale price system was or was not in the public interest. The judgment of Mr. Justice Buckley, as reported in the Weekly Law Reports, 1962, was to the effect that the consequences of the condemnation of resale price maintenance in the net book agreement would he three. First, there would be fewer and less-equipped stockholding bookshops. Secondly, there would be more expensive books. Thirdly, there would be fewer published titles.
Mr. Justice Buckley went on to say:
In out judgment, each of these heads is sufficiently explicit, definable and distinct in character to justify the description 'specific' and the avoidance of these disadvantageous consequences can properly be termed a specific benefit or advantage… We do not consider that the Association has established that the services rendered to their customers by surviving stockholding booksellers, would deteriorate in consequence of condemnation of the Agreement to such a degree that avoiding this would amount to a substantial benefit.
It would appear from that judgment that if the same argument was adduced by the booksellers under this Bill they could only argue the case about the number of book-selling establishments and the variety of the titles. They would be debarred from arguing that books would be more expensive.
I would remind the Committee of what the present Minister of Defence said when he was justifying in debate the wording of Section 21(1,b):
Without this Clause the net book agreement would be banned. It would be presumed to be contrary to the public interest.… It is absolutely essential, for the reasons which I have mentioned, that we should have a Clause of this kind and that a proper opportunity should be given to people to argue that the removal of the restriction would cause specific and substantial damage to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 650.]

I should like to go from the net book agreement to the argument about the Cement Asociation. There again the argument put before the Court was that prices were lower than they would be in the absence of a resale price agreement. The cement manufacturers will be precluded from putting up that argument unless we have a wider gateway than the three specific; gateways which my right hon. Friend has put in the Bill.
Mr. Justice Diplock in his judgment in that case, in the 1961 Report of Restrictive Practices Cases, said:
The common price agreement has been so operated is to keep down the overall price of cement to a level substantially lower than under tree competition.
I therefore again suggest to my right hon. Friend that he has not a sufficiently wide gateway in the Bill to deal with the major argument of public interest, because in my view price must be the major argument for the public interest and price is. not included in the three gateways in the Bill.
Again, to look at the arguments put before the Monopolies Commission on the cigarette and tobacco industry, the third finding, was that resale price maintenance in the industry would benefit the public because the public would like a standard price. That again would be an argument which could not be put before the Court on the basis of the gateways now in the Bill although it would be if the Court could look at it under Section 21(1,b) of the 1956 Act.
11.0 p.m.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this Amendment, although it has been so described in the newspapers, is not a wrecking Amendment. It is a renovating Amendment. In other words, it is asking the Government to define public interest as they did in the 1956 Act. It is true—I admit it at once—that the whole of Section 21 of the 1956 Act was dealing with the wide position of restrictive agreements. But the paragraph that I have quoted from Section 21(1,b) is directed particularly to the problem of resale price agreements and has been so applied by successive judges in the Restrictive Practices Court.
I do not expect on the Amendment any support from the Labour Party. We had the Bill of the hon. Member for


Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). He proposed to abolish resale price maintenance without any consideration of what was or was not in the public interest. If his Bill had gone through, there would have been no gateway at all.
Again, I realise perfectly well that on the 1956 Act it was the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) who tried to destroy the form of words that I am trying to insert into the Bill. They tried to remove the words from that Act. Sir Lynn Ungoed Thomas, who wound up for the Opposition, said that paragraph (b) was a wide provision which would enable a horse and cart to be driven through the Bill. We have had that paragraph in the 1956 Act for eight years, and no horse and cart has been driven through the Measure. There have been 27 cases to which the paragraph has been applied; in seven cases it was found that the applicant had made his case within the public interest, and in the other 20 the applicant had not.

Mr. Jay: Our attitude to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will depend on what it means. To be quite clear, since we have all to decide how to vote on it, may I ask him whether the effect of the Amendment would be that a good case would be made out for exemption of some class of goods if it could be shown that without resale price maintenance certain services—after-sales services, or whatever they might be—which were not necessary but were perhaps desirable, would disappear, and that the resale price maintenance and the maintenance of those services went together? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is arguing?

Mr. Turton: I am sorry. I thought I had made it clear when I read out the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckley in connection with the net book Agreement that these are the considerations which he had to look at under Section 21 (1,b). He had to see how in general the public would gain or would lose by the disappearance of the resale price agreement in that case. He said that, in his view, the public would lose because the price of books could go up, there would be fewer outlets for books and there would be fewer varieties of title. I went on to tell the Committee

that Mr. Justice Buckley had considered the whole question of services, in particular of the net book agreement, and he said that he could not hold that the public would lose on the question of services but he found three specific advantages and, of course, he had to weigh them one against the other.
At the same time, I was making the point that, although the Opposition in 1956 made this great chatter through one of their leading spokesmen about driving a coach and horses through the Bill, in fact, the Restrictive Practices Court has applied this form of words to, I think, the general satisfaction of everyone in this Committee at the present time. From that it appears that we who are today selecting the Restrictive Practices Court as the adjudicating body on what is, or is not, in the public interest, should give it the same wide powers it has had in the past.
The Court understands what is in the public interest and what we are really doing in this Clause as drafted is to provide three narrow gateways. We have the gateways in subsection (2) which I have already mentioned, but then we go on to the tailpiece where we ask about the general advantage on one side or the other. What we are doing in the Bill as drafted is to provide these three narrow and, I submit, inadequate gateways, and then ask that they be set overall with the tailpiece which is drafted on similar lines to Section 21 (1,b) of the 1956 Act which, I advocate should be inserted into this Bill.
Without this Amendment every applicant will be at the disadvantage of being able to put forward only certain arguments and then have them counter-weighed with this tailpiece of "general consideration". This will not be presenting a balanced argument to the Court and it will not be fair to the applicant. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter very carefully, because I know that he has tried in his specific gateways to deal with certain goods and manufactures; but I feel sure that, looking at these gateways again, he will say that he has thought of certain ones like, perhaps, tobacconists and the smaller outlets, and the stationers but has not, I submit, dealt with the very complex nature of the differing goods subject at the moment to resale price maintenance agreements.
In particular I hope that I have shown that the net book agreement could not succeed unless we widen the gateways. The Minister has not really dealt with the question of safety, and the present gateways mean that pharmaceutical goods, for instance, would not really be covered by the existing three narrow gateways. I beg the Committee to consider whether it is really right for us to try to draft specific, narrow, gateways. Should we not, rather, look again at what we did in 1956 and put in a broad gateway and then leave it to the Court to decide what, in fact, is in the public interest? I support this Bill and I want to see that where resale price maintenance is against the public interest it is made illegal; but where the Court, with due argument and evidence can find that it is in the public interest, then it should be allowed to continue when the whole balance of advantage has been put in. It is in that spirit that I move the Amendment.

Mr. M. Foot: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made an extremely formidable case. He presented it with great power, but it is a pity that he was not able to present it at the beginning of our debates tomorrow afternoon when more hon. Members might have been here to listen to what he had to say. I am not attaching any blame in this matter. Indeed, the fault might be mine for not moving to report Progress earlier.
However, it would have been better if the discussion of what must be regarded as an extremely important Amendment had started at half-past three or four o'clock in the afternoon. That would have been better than having the argument truncated tonight and continued tomorrow. That is my own personal opinion. Everybody does not have to agree with me about everything, and if hon. Members do not agree with me about this, I cannot altogether blame them.
The right hon. Member's case was extremely powerful and I shall be interested to know whether there is a full answer to it. If it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that without the Amendment, or similar words, the net book agreement would not go through, that is one of the main arguments which the Secretary of State will

have to answer. It would be extremely damaging to the country as a whole if the Bill resulted in a general disruption of the book trade, which is one of the most important in the country.
The same thing applies in a somewhat lesser degree to the newspaper trade and to newsagents. The right hon. Member's attempt to widen the gateways is made all fie more important by what the Secretary of State admitted about newsagents in our discussions on Clause 4, when he clearly indicated that he envisaged more newsagents being able to get a franchise to set up shop. There may be a case for it and it is what he thought the Bill would assist in some respects, and in that sense it would be dangerous it the gateways were not widened.
It is true that resale price maintenance as it is applied to newspapers is not enforced by law or by action of the newspaper proprietors. It is enforced by a kind of suspended threat in the sense that if a newsagent started to sell newspapers at less than the maintained resale price, the newspaper proprietors might start to withhold supplies from him. Under the Bill, they might be guilty of unlawful action on that account. It is conceivable that under the Bill as it stands, if no widening of the gateway; takes place, resale price maintenance with newspapers might be abolished. I t would be most damaging to the country if that were to happen, because what we might very well do by abolishing resale price maintenance in practice for newspapers—whether it is enforced or not, and however it is enforced does not affect the question—is to destroy he whole system whereby newspapers are distributed in this country.
11.15 p.m.
If we could have a situation in which new newsagents were encouraged to set up in particular areas for a short spell of time, to knock others out of business, then once they succeeded in doing that they would hold part of the market and would try to, build up their business on that basis. of they succeeded they might disrupt the whole system whereby newspapers are distributed by newsagents at present.
As I understand, in most other countries of the world—I do not say all of them—the distribution of newspapers


by newsagents which happens in this country does not occur. It may be that one of the reasons why newsagents in this country are able to distribute the newspapers is because they have an ordered system of distribution, and if we disrupted that ordered system of distribution by breaking up resale price maintenance we could do great damage to the distribution of newspapers in this country which, after all, is an extremely important matter not only from the point of view of the newspaper proprietors or those who sell newspapers but from the point of view of the dissemination of news and opinion in this country.

Sir P. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, bear in mind that there is no such thing as a newsagent pure and simple. The whole marvellous system of the distribution of newspapers in this country depends not only on the direct arrangements between the newspaper proprietors and the agents but on the other business which they all conduct and which may be dependent to some extent on resale price maintenance in respect of books, cigarettes and other things too.

Mr. Foot: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am most grateful for his interruption. Indeed, his speech on an earlier Clause reinforced what I am now saying. He said on one of the Amendments to Clause 4 that there was no legal enforcement of resale price maintenance for newspapers but that it worked in practice. The question before us, as far as newspapers go, is whether we are going to disrupt that system by the Bill. The lion. Gentleman has supported my case by saying that if we interfere with the rest of the business of the newsagents we shall injure the business, and I agree. Therefore, from the point of view of the newsagents we must look at how the resale price maintenance system is affected by other commodities.
I am discussing the question of how it affects the distribution of newspapers and whether the gateway should be widened as the right hon. Gentleman has urged in his Amendment, apparently in order to protect the distribution of newspapers. I, of course, have an interest in the matter which I am happy to declare, although I do not get any money out of it. I am a journalist, and I am, of course, anxious to see the widest distribution of news-

papers, but I am interested not only as a journalist who writes and gets paid for writing in newspapers but because I believe that the distribution of newspapers in this country is a matter in which all people who are interested in free opinion should be concerned.
If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to interfere with the present system of the distribution of newspapers he ought to tell us quite clearly what he thinks is going to happen and what he envisages. If he says that in his opinion there will be no interference whatsoever with the present system of distributing newspapers it will comfort us very much. It does not mean that we shall agree with everything in the Bill on that account. The right hon. Gentleman's opinion does not make law; it is just his opinion, but it may influence us. At any rate we should like to know what he thinks will be the result of the Bill on the present system of distributing newspapers.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that there will be no change, or that he does not think that there will be a change, that will influence our opinion as to what we would think of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about widening the gateway. There may not be so much need to widen the gateway if the right hon. Gentleman says that there will be no change, but I think that it will be very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee that there will be no change, in view of what he said on Clause 4.
I am not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's exact words, but when speaking on Clause 4 he said that we have to ensure that we do not prevent new people from entering the industry, or the job, of distributing newspapers. That is a reasonable point of view, but the right hon. Gentleman envisaged that the Bill might assist new entrants into the newsagents business—new entrants who might conceivably be cutting prices and selling newspapers at below present prices.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain why he knows that, and why he knows that resale price maintenance will be suspended in the case of newspapers. I hope that he will explain why he is so convinced of that. It may be that his explanation will be convincing—and he can be very convincing when


he wants to be. If the right hon. Gentleman convinces the Committee that newspapers are not going to be affected at all in this sense—leaving aside what happens to the other commodities that they sell in their shops—it will be a powerful case, but I think that it will conflict with the hint that he gave on a previous Clause.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain all these matters very clearly, because I believe that it would be very damaging to the House of Commons if we were to pass this Bill without knowing what would be its consequences on, to take just two examples, the book trade and the newspaper trade. I am not saying that they are the most important trades in the country, but I am very interested in them, and we have to do our best to look after them.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to argue that the gateways are wide enough to ensure that the book trade will not be interfered with, although the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does not take the same view. We want to know the answer to that. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman says that he is convinced that the book trade will enjoy the same position as it has today, even though it has to go to the Court and prove it, it will be a certain load off our minds.
I also want to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks about the future of the newspaper trade in that respect, but in any case, particularly as we have discussed these matters at great length, it would be wrong for the House of Commons to pass this Measure, and in particular this Clause, without knowing exactly what is the Government's view of the effect of their Measure on these two trades, and, secondly, whether their view is correct.

Mr. Heath: I shall deal with the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised, together with others that will be raised, when I reply to the debate, but he will not expect me to undertake the task of a court. My purpose, surely, is to explain what the opportunities are for stating a case, and it would be inappropriate for me to try to foretell what the judgment of the Court should be, because that is the task of the Court itself. It

would be presumptuous of me to try to foretell what the decision is going to be.
I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said during our discussion on Clause 4. I was talking in general about protecting the situation in which newcomers to trades generally can establish themselves. I was dealing with the onus of proof. When I was dealing with newspapers, in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottort) I said that there were other arrangements for dealing with these, and these I understand were dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop) later in the debate.

Mr. Foot: On the second point, about newcomers in the trade I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. But it is certainly my understanding that he was indicating that he thought it was a good thing that there should be newcomers in the business of distributing newspapers. The implication was that some of the newcomers would be able to reduce their prices under the Bill. If that consequence followed it could be extremely dangerous. If newcomers forced their way into the business of distributing newspapers by price cutting they could destroy the general services which newsagents give their customers, unless the gateways of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are widened.

Mr. Heath: That is not the argument that I was eating with under Clause 4, but I am quite prepared to deal with it under this Amendment.

Mr. Foot: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. But he has also said, "It would be quite improper for me to indicate what should be the decision of the Court. These matters will be refer-ed to the Court." What we are discussing under the Clause is what gateways at e to be allowed if these matters are reported to the Court. We can discuss such matters only in practical terms—in terms of who is likely to get through the gateways. What is the use of his saying that he does not want to prejudice what the Court will say? Apparently we will decide what the gateways are but we will not even look to see who is likely to get through them.
That is art absurd way of going about the whole business. I would have hoped


that the whole Committee would be absolutely opposed to the abolition of the system of resale price maintenance for books. If we are agreed upon that, it is one of the tests of the effectiveness of the gateways, and if under that test it still has to be said, "We will still leave it doubtful what will happen to books", in my opinion there is something wrong with the gateways.
That is part of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman for Thirsk and Mahon. We consider that the Committee should decide these matters only in practical terms, and we must make up our minds in general who is likely to get through the gateways and who is not. The idea that we can do this on a theoretical basis, without any consideration of the kind of commodity or article involved, is an absurdity. The right hon. Gentleman has been very clever in intervening. It makes it unnecessary for him to answer the argument at the end of the debate, if his intervention is accepted, because he will say, "I should prejudice the case if I said what would be the effect when this went to the Court."
I submit that before we vote on the matter we should be told who is likely to get through the gateways. He will not be able to tell us every trade which will succeed, but if he says that he cannot give us any examples, and no indication whether resale price maintenance will be abolished on books, he will be treating the matter in a most trivial manner. Because he has failed to think his Bill out carefully enough, what he will be doing then will be to try to carry through a Measure which in many respects is beneficial, but which could be damaging to some trades which are of primary importance to the dissemination of free opinion and free thought. If the Government were to take any action which injured the book trade they would be committing an even greater error than most of the others they have committed. The case for newspapers is not so high, but it comes into the same category. We are entitled to know what the Government think will be the consequence of this Measure on these two trades.
No doubt hon. Members will produce arguments to say that they want to know how the industry or trade with

which they are concerned will be affected by the gateways. That is how we will be able to judge whether the gateways are wide enough or not.
11.30 p.m.
There is another matter that I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Earlier in the day I had some argument with him—or he had some argument with me, whichever way he likes to put it—about agreements made before these debates took place. It affects in particular this Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State repudiated any suggestion that in his meetings with his back benchers he had been engaged in any discussions which were in any way improper. He laughed at the suggestion and treated it as a derisory hint on my part. He said that he was engaged in perfectly normal procedure. He also smiled at the suggestions in The Times that he had made any hard and fast agreements with his back benchers.
I should like to read to the right hon. Gentleman a further paragraph to the paragraph that I read earlier today, and ask him whether it is correct or not. Then we can make up our minds whether it is a proper thing for him to have done. It affects the debate that we are having now. It affects the question whether the debate that we are now having is a fraud or not.
This is what The Times political correspondent writes about the meeting which the right hon. Gentleman had with a group of his back benchers last night: It is headed:
Mr. Heath stands firm on prices.
The article says:
He appears to he prepared to accept only minor changes which will not affect the main principle of the Bill and others relating to the sale of drugs.
That is the paragraph that I quoted earlier to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman defends that paragraph on the ground that "These are the same minor changes that I hinted in my Second Reading speech I might be prepared to make, and therefore nobody should be worried about it." Apparently, the only people who should be worried about such a statement are those who claim that the right hon. Gentleman has made major changes.
The next paragraph is the crucial one. The Times political correspondent says:
The key amendment tabled by Mr. Robin Turton, Mr. Geoffrey Hirst and other Conservatives which would provide a wide 'gateway' in clause five was rejected completely by Mr. Heath.
I should like to know whether that statement is true or not. If the right hon. Gentleman says to me that it is not true, that the report in The Times is completely inaccurate and misleading, that he did not reject this Amendment last night, I will accept his word, of course. The whole Committee will accept his word. But if what The Times political correspondent says is generally correct, that that is what the right hon. Gentleman did last night when he met his back benchers, then I say that my charge against him of having behaved improperly is fully substantiated.
The right hon. Gentleman smiles about it, and appears to think that these matters are of secondary importance. I got into quite a lot of trouble in my own party on many occasions for arguing that it is improper for Members of this House to settle in private meetings outside what should be settled on the Floor of the House of Commons.
What the right hon. Gentleman has done, if The Times correspondent is correct, is to carry this process much further because, according to The Times, the right hon. Gentleman has gone to the length of saying to his back benchers which Amendments he will accept and which he will reject, in private the night before the debate. That is absolutely improper because, if it is true, it makes a farce of these proceedings and every hon. Member knows it. If what The Times political correspondent says, that the right hon. Gentleman, the night before this debate, went to his back benchers and completely rejected the Amendment which is before the Committee, he behaved most improperly and he should apologise to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly.
If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman will say that the report in The Times is completely inaccurate, I will accept it and I am sure the rest of the Committee will accept it, but the right hon. Gentleman must answer it. [Interruption.] I quite understand that some hon. Members opposite wish to

divert this argument. They want to divert it to some other question, but I still maintain—and I do not care how many support me or how many oppose me—that if it is the claim of hon. Members that they want to sustain the authority of the House of Commons decisions must be made in debates in the House of Commons Ministers must make up their minds at the end of discussions in the House of Commons.
I began my remarks by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had made an extremely formidable speech, but what is the use of his making a formidable speech if the night before he had said he completely rejected the Amendment anyhow? Are we going through a great charade? Is it all fixed and do hon. Members opposite all know what is to happen? Quite a number of hon. Members opposite were at the meeting last night, at this hugger-mugger affair. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who interrupted may not have been there, but quite a number were there. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who was there?"] I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is used to raking speeches to himself. I am sure that he likes to have a slightly larger audience.
The right hon. Gentleman laughs now, but I assure him that this is quite contrary to general practice in the House of Commons. I know that the practice has grown up in recent years, and is accepted move and more by hon. Members opposite., that these matters can be settled outside the House of Commons and the Government can indicate which Amendments they will accept and which they will reject, but that is absolutely improper. What is the purpose of moving an Amendment if it has been rejected the night before?

Mr. Doughty: Can the hon. Member go so far as to say that if his party had a private meeting to decide whether or not to vote against this or any other Amendment it would be wrong or improper?

Mr. Foot: No, I do not say that. What I say I have said earlier today. I remember very well when we had a Labour Government in power, but I cannot recall any instance during that period when Ministers went to their back benchers and said to them which Amendments they would accept or reject in


the debate the next day. [Laughter.] Hon. Members think this is a laughing matter, but what they do by their laughter and derision is to laugh at the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Non-sense."] I advocate the rights of the House of Commons. Quite rightly people listen to the right hon. Gentleman seriously, but what is the use of that if he rejected the Amendment the night before? The right hon. Gentleman should not laugh because he denied it, or half-denied it, before. Is the report in The Times correct?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: No.

Mr. Foot: I said earlier that if the right hon. Gentleman says that the report in The Times is absolutely incorrect, I shall accept his word but that if the report is correct, then the case which I have made against him is ineradicable.

Mr. Angus Maude: It is very difficult to know whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) means to be as outrageous as he sometimes appears, although it is usually a fair bet that he does.
I do not want to say much about his second point, but he must know well that in the days of the Labour Government these things happened, not necessarily in respect of minor Amendments to Bills but on major matters of policy, which were discussed in party meetings, as they always are. But the point is surely much more trivial than that. I know nothing about the meeting to which he and The Times correspondent refer. I was not at it. But even if it were true, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has moved his Amendment, and there is nothing whatever to prevent him and his hon. and right hon. Friends from voting for that Amendment if they are dissatisfied with the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, no matter what he said at the private meeting. It is quite absurd for him to pretend that anyone is bound, or that the rules or spirit of the House of Commons are breached, by discussions which take place, wherever they take place. What is more, the hon. Member knows it.
I think I can deal very briefly with his first point. He cannot believe that he is not trying to turn the Bill completely on its head by the order in which he proposes that these matters should be dealt with. On Clause 2 we dealt with the question whether specific trades and practices should be written into the Bill as exceptions from the general principle. We agreed that they should not. Now he goes further and says that it does not matter; that we should not look at this from the point of view of which gateways we should lay down but from the point of view of every industry separately to see what difference the Bill will make to it.
Because he approves of the net book agreement, because I may approve of it, and because my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) may approve of it, therefore, he says, the gateways must be so drawn as to assure that the net book agreement scrapes through. Then no doubt someone else will say that they must be so drawn that clothes pegs get through or motor cars or any other trade, industry or commodity which he likes to mention. This is to turn the whole Bill as we have agreed it so far on its head, and he must know that this is so.
My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that it is for the Court to decide which practices are or are not in the public interest. That is very good. Let us decide which general principles are in the general interest and then let the Court see whether a particular commodity, trade or practice gets through the gateway. But let us not go through the ridiculous farce of pretending that we can take one commodity or one trade and see whether we can find a collective voice about every single industry, commodity or trade and then draw the gateway to suit it. We must remember that there are many different voices about the net book agreement, about motor cars, about cigarettes and about anything else. If we were to follow that procedure we should be here for ever, as the hon. Member well knows.

Mr. M. Foot: I am not suggesting that we should write into the Bill each commodity which should be exempt. I am suggesting—and this was also put by his right hon. Friend the Member for


Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), so he need not get so angry with me about it—that a good way to judge whether the gateway is wide enough is to see whether a cow can get through it. That is a test. If it is so narrow that only a chicken can get through, then it is a different kind of gateway. We can judge the width or narrowness of the gateway only by what kind of animal can get through. Therefore, when I ask whether this particular kind of animal can get through, that is a good way of testing what kind of gateway it is.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Maude: With respect, of course, it is not, because once we have had it in respect of one industry or commodity the way is open to discuss it in respect of every other single commodity or trade one may care to think of, and that makes a nonsense of the whole proceedings. The test is not whether the net book agreement would scrape through; the test, and the only test, is whether, in the last resort, a practice is in the public interest or not. Any other test or discussion is ridiculous.

Mr. Foot: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should support his right hon. Friend's Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman wants to make sure that the public interest is preserved and protected, and one of the only ways in which we can judge whether the public interest is protected is by seeing which particular kinds of trades will manage to secure and maintain their system of operation under the Bill. One cannot test it in any way except by practical example.

Mr. Maude: The fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's argument, as he knows perfectly well, is that he is assuming that we are all agreed from the start that the net book agreement, for example, is in the public interest. If there are among my hon. Friends and among hon. Members opposite people who do not believe that the net book agreement is in the public interest, the test the hon. Gentleman proposes is a farce, obviously, and he is bound to come back solely to the public interest as the only test in the last resort, not by measuring whether the net book agreement is in the public interest—or resale price maintenance on clothes

pegs. These may be adduced in argument as examples but cannot in themselves be to As. The hon. Gentleman is prejudging the true issue for which Parliament at the moment trying to lay down criteria, and he is not entitled to prejudge that issue. The whole thing is absurd.
Nor is the hon. Gentleman right in saying that because of my views I am necessarily bound to support my right hon. Friend's Amendment. I happen to believe that the criteria of the public interest are adequately catered for by the three gateways already in existence, taken in conjunction with the tailpiece to the Clause. Therefore, the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which was ingenious and, as usual, amusingly put forward, is, in fact, a gigantic fraud.

Mr. Heath: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Sir Robert, we have made progress with Clause 4 and have started this major debate on Clause 5. I think that this would be a suitable moment to report Progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

ROADS, CLEVELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: want this evening to refer to the roads in my constituency. I must say, first, what a desirable area Cleveland is, and try to give my hon. Friend a physical impression of the area, as I do not believe that he has visited it. The River Tees must be the key point of the description, and south of the Tees is a huge plain which is proving to be one of the country's natural economic growth points. Industrial growth there over the last 10 years or so has been quite incredible, and the amounts of capital spent for productive industry at Wilton, I.C.I., and at Dorman Long, at Lackenby, at the new Teesport, which is the only new dock built since the war, and the proposed new Shell oil refinery, prove that contention.
My next contention is that behind this industrial plain is the row of hills which are the Cleveland foothills. Beyond this is a valley and a second row of hills, the Cleveland hills proper, which run down to the coast and are the highest cliffs on the East Coast. This gives an area enormously expansive, flat and ready for industry with the deepening of the river which is to come and the new' dock and facilities there. If one looks at the area and sees this plain and with what I like to call the living area behind, which borders upon a National Park, this is a delightful area in which to live.
The roads which I want to mention specifically run from east to west in the area—in effect, from Loftus through to Middlesbrough. This series of roads parallels the River Tees and the coast, which leans from east to west. The A.174, which enters my constituency at Staithes, is good at that point and has been put in excellent order by the county council since the closure of the railway from Whitby up to Loftus.
Once the road gets to Loftus—at Easington—it leaves a lot to be desired. The road through Loftus is narrow and twisting and there are some rather ugly patches where accidents can occur. One goes on then to Skinningrove I am delighted to say that, again, the county council and the Minister have been able to make an excellent job of an enormous dip in the terrain, probably 200 or 300 ft. in depth, and the road there is excellent. It is spoilt, however, by the fact that there is a disused railway bridge over the road at Carlin How.
The road carries on through Carlin How in an unfortunate series of bends. Through Lax Terrace, in particular, it is really bad. It then climbs a long and difficult bank, on which it is awkward for anybody to overtake. It then comes to a really bad corner, Chemist Corner, about which many of my constituents have written, where it joins the A.173 in Brotton.
Why it is important that the road should be improved is that the Skinningrove steelworks are situated at the top of Carlin How and on this road. In 1951,less than 20 per cent. of the finished steel production went out from

this steelworks by road. Last year, however, the proportion going by road was over 50 per cent. It is interesting to note that the National Coal Board demands that its steel goes out by road from this steelworks to the site at which it is used. In the Hall Committee, representatives of the Minister's Department considered the future of the steel industry and transport. That Committee believed that in the next 20 years there would be an increase of between 100 and 128 per cent. in the quantity of steel products carried by road from the steel industry. This is important when we consider the A.174, which joins the A.173 at Brotton.
The road then carries on through a series of curves and dips in the land and reaches Skelton, where the road becomes really bad. It goes into a bad dip immediately outside Skelton. After that, it goes through a right-angle bend in green flat fields which it would appear to be a very cheap job to straighten. It then goes to a place known locally as Skelton Ellers, one of the most terrible parts of road that anybody could negotiate.
It then goes on to a corner called Cemetery Corner, outside Guisborough, where the accident record is extremely bad. It then carries on to Middlesbrough, to the bottom of Ormesby Bank, where afterwards the road is good. The A.171, this road, which is extremely heavily trafficked, has a series of swoops and curves. Only a short time ago, two civil servants of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government were killed in an accident on that road when on their way from the area office.
The next road to which I should like to draw attention is one which carries incredibly heavy traffic. It is the B.1269 from Guisborough to Redcar. The volume of traffic there has been created by the expansion of the I.C.I. works. Guisborough in the last few years has grown by 48 per cent. The road is narrow and has bad cambers. Cemetery Corner is one of its bad features. The next bad spot is a dip combined with a bend at a place called Thocketts Farm. There is a further dip near Dunsdale. Somebody went straight off the road there a couple of years ago for no apparent reason and was killed. There is a bad camber and a dip at Dunsdale. The road at Yearby Bank Top as it swoops into the plain is extremely narrow and difficult for traffic. At the bottom of the dip,


at Yearby village, there have been a number of extremely bad accidents in the last few years.
On the question of the Skelton to Marske road, I must offer praise both to the county council and the Ministry, because here work is being done on the B.1627, but only half of the project. I look forward to the second half being done. Then Skelton will grow. This should join the A.714 just outside Marske and it is unfortunate that the road goes through a village which has grown 46 per cent. and has a thriving shopping centre in an extremely narrow road. If a short length of by-pass were built on the landward side of the railway heavy through traffic would be eliminated completely. There are corners of the A.174 in flat, green fields. It is incredible but these roads appear to be straight out of the horse and cart age. I should like to thank the Minister and the Government for the attention which is given in the Hailsham Report to the South Tees-side parkway and the A.19. These are economically vital to the area and I sincerely hope that rapid progress will be made on the joining of Teesport with the South Tees-side parkway and then the A.19.
The town of Southbank is spread out in American gridiron fashion. The streets are narrow. Heavy lorries trundle down them very frequently. I hate to negotiate the roads on foot. It is a horrific sight on the Friday market days and I shall never know why there are not many more accidents there. I would ask the Minister to urge the road authorities there to consider a one-way system and even play streets in the roads which could be blocked off. I am confident that that would be to the advantage of the citizens there.
The A.1085 which, strangley enough, is called a trunk road though, though there is not one trunk road in the whole of my Division, has extremely bad parts in Grangetown. A great deal of attention has been given to it by the local council and I am delighted to say that this has produced good results. Apart from the big-dipper roads in my division—for this is what they look like—there is also the problem of a number of disused bridges. The division

has a good name for bridges, We have popped one. across the Firth of Forth and we are placing one across the Severn—

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton: With a good deal of assistance, I may say, from my constituents, the Cleveland Bridge Company of Darlington.

Mr. Proudfoot: We make the steel in Cleveland and allow the Cleveland Bridge Company to help.
I ask the Minister to have a "bridge week" in my division and I say that I will go along with a hammer to help him wreck the disused ones. First. there is the one at Carlin How propped up with wood. Then on the road from Lingdale no Skelton there are two bridges within the length of this Chamber. One is the weirdest one I have ever seen. There is one bridge on top of another. The bottom one is buckled up because of subsidence in the area, and the second is propped up with wood on top of the buckled one. That bridge is low unused. Fifty yards along the road is the second bridge, again unused.
The fourth bridge, this time over the railway, to which I want my hon. Friend to pay attention, is the one outside Guisborough on the A.171. It is near a village called Charltons, and is approached from Guisborough by a right-hand bend. If a stranger was going too fast on the road he could go straight through the parapet and down 40 feet on to the now disused railway line below. I urge the Minister to have a "bridge week" in my division. I am sure that it would pay off in efficiency and safety.
The holiday traffic which goes on the A.171 ultimately to Whitby and Scarborough, in view of the economic growth which is obviously bound to come, requires some attention. The whole theme of the argument is that people should be in living areas—I prefer that term to dormitory areas—in the pleasant hills of Cleveland. They are near the coast, and they are near the National Parks. I believe that today distances should be measured not by miles but by driving time. The driving time and the safety of my constituents can be enhanced greatly and, I believe, at very small expenditure if


these bends and bridges and dips can be eliminated and give easy access to industrial Tees-side.

12.2 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I always find it rather difficult when replying to Adjournment debates of this sort, because so passionate is each hon. Member's interest in his own area that he is able to convince himself that it is being treated as a kind of Cinderella and is not getting its due. This, I think, is almost inevitable because hon. Members, naturally, see only the blemishes in their own area. They do not have the overall information which is at the Government's disposal, which might make the picture seem quite different from what it appears to the hon. Member concerned.
To a certain extent, after listening to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot), I think that this applies to the area which we are considering tonight, because Cleveland is certainly not a Cinderella. The Government fully recognise the importance of good roads to the industrial development of Tees-side, including the industrial part of Cleveland. That is why the special £50 million additional roads programme for the North-East, announced in the White Paper on the development and growth of this region in November last year, included a number of important schemes for the improvement of road communications to the Tees-side area.
Examples of these are the improvement of the link between Darlington and Tees-side, which is most important for the trade of the area; the present A.19 north-south route through Stockton is to be replaced by a new route probably crossing the Tees between Stockton and Middlesbrough; another change that will help a lot is the radical improvement of the A.19/A.I68 trunk route from south of Stockton right down to its connection at Dishforth with the A.1; in addition, the A.19 northwards from Stockton is to be comprehensively improved up to Sunderland to give Tees-side a better link with Tyneside.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, these are the main trunk routes linking Tees-side with the rest of the country, and to improve them means that the area in which my hon. Friend is interested will become gradually more and more clearly integrated with the industrial regions in other parts of the country. All this involves a vast additional programme which will cost approximately £18 million, and all of it we hope to start within the next five years.
To make sure, however, that the future trunk road pattern within the Tees-side area itself will be right, my right hon. Friend decided to appoint consultants to examine the needs of the area and to make recommendations. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that we hope to have their report within a matter of a few weeks.
In addition, of course, to these main trunk routes, the special programme for the North-East to which I have already referred, includes the construction of a new South Tees-side Parkway with a connection to Lackenby Dock. This will provide a vastly improved route between the industrial area and Teesoort and, with all this evidence of activity, there can be no doubt that the Government fully recognises the importance of roads to Tees-side. However, my hon. Friend may well ask whether the Government has got its priorities right. To that, I would say that I believe there is general agreement among hon. Members that, in this problem of phasing road improvements we have to put first things first.
Naturally, our policy is easier to accept if one lives in an industrial area rather than in a rural or semi-rural area such as that for which my hon. Friend speaks, but unless we concentrate our main effort on the major through routes and on schemes for the relief of congestion in urban areas, there will inevitably be a slowing down of industry through delays in the delivery of materials and goods, and that will be damaging to the economy of the country as a whole.
I think that one of the things about which my hon. Friend is complaining is that not enough is being done to improve the local roads in Cleveland itself which really fulfil two purposes. First,


they have to some extent, an industrial purpose themselves in that they help the movement of materials and goods to and from the ironworks at Skinningrove, near Loftus; and, secondly, they are used by those who work in the Tees-side area, but live outside that area—the commuters, although my hon. Friend says he does not like talking of this as a dormitory area. The Ministry knows the needs of both industry and workers who are trying to get to that industry, and the very great importance of good roads to them both, and, as my hon. Friend will know, more money is being made available for roads than ever before.
In 1962–63, the Government spent £136 million and local highway authorities spent £80 million as against £33 million and £57 million respectively ten years ago. This year we are spending £179 million, with a corresponding increase in local authority expenditure. These are very substantial increases, but neither funds nor resources are unlimited. It simply is not possible to do everything at once and, in dealing with the main routes linking Teesside with the rest of the country, we have to be guided by our system of priorities.
That is not to say that we are doing nothing about the local roads in Cleveland; the very reverse is the fact. In recent years we have done a great deal, but before giving instances of this I should like to explain that the local road system in Cleveland is made up of Class 1 and lesser classified roads for which the North Riding County Council, Redcar Borough Council, and Eston Urban District Council, are the highway authorities. They are not the Minister's roads. The local highway authorities are responsible for them although in discharging their duties they do, of course, rely on the Ministry for grants towards the cost of improvements. The initiative—and I must stress this point—lies with the councils.
They decide, within their own areas, which they think are the most important roads, those which are most in need of improvement and, in common with other local authorities, they put to the Ministry the road schemes they want to carry out and for which they want grant assistance. That is the essence of local democracy; that each local authority should indicate within its own area the priorities of the various schemes on its list. When we

get those lists at the Ministry we have to consider the competing bids of all authorities and, within the total funds at our disposal, to select for grant those schemes we think will give the greatest benefit to the community.
It may be that people living in Cleveland do not consider they are getting enough money for the necessary improvements. This is a common complaint from many areas, and certainly my hon. Fiend has been very pressing on behalf of his own constituency. He has not only had long correspondence with my predecessor—which I have had the benefit of reading—and with the Minister about these roads, but he has also discussed them personally and at length with my right hon. Friend. He is to be congratulated on his persistence on behalf of his constituents.
But although we recognise only too well that much of the local road system in Cleveland is in need of improvement, in comparison with the rest of the county, and with the country generally, traffic volumes are not high, and an examination of the records for the busiest roads in the area shows a low level of accidents. I have not been able to get any details about Cemetery Corner, but I will certainly look into that matter.
As we have explained previously to my hon. Friend, Cleveland has received its due share of the money which we have been able to allocate to road improvement in the North Riding. During the last seven or eight years, about 18 percent. of the Government money provided for improvements in the North Riding has been allocated to schemes in Cleveland, yet the area has only 5 per cent. of the classified road mileage in the county. These figures seem to indicate that Cleveland is not being neglected in any way.
To prove this, I should like to give some examples of recent work which has been carried out within the last five years. I apologise to the House if I have to quote a large number of figures. On the A.174 road there have been improvements at Windsor Road, Saltburn, costing £39,000; at Kelton Mill Bridge, costing £35,000; at Ormesby crossroads, costing £10,000; from Easington to Boulby Grange, costing £25,000 and at Redhouse Bridge, costing £12,000. Other improvements which have been carried


out are a roundabout at the junction with the Tees Dock Road on A.1085, costing £25,000; widening of Middlesbrough Road East, B.1446, costing £27,000; widening at Mill Bank, Skelton on B.1267, costing £52,000, and provision of additional width on the Tees Dock Approach Road costing £29,000.
Furthermore, in addition to all this we were able last year to authorise works, costing nearly £500,000 over and above the normal programme, to help relieve unemployment in the region. Indeed, some of these works have already been completed, such as the improvement of Church Lane, Guisborough, while work is well under way on the improvement of the B.1365 at Hemlington and on the first stage of the improvement of Normanby Road, Eston. I am glad to say that work on the second stage has started and also on schemes at Ovens Close on the A.171 at Flatts Lane, Guisborough, and Kirkleatham Lane, Redcar. I think that this record shows a fair spread of work being undertaken.
I notice that my hon. Friend would like me to attend a "bridge week" in his constituency, but I think that we have already started, because a grant towards the removal of the bridge and the improvement of the road on the abandoned railway at Carlin How was issued last July and this should help considerably the transport of material and goods to and from the Skinningrove Iron Company near Loftus. I hope that that will encourage my hon. Friend. We also hope to authorise a grant for the improvement of Acklam Road, A.174, at Middlesbrough this year. It seems to me that Cleveland has not been doing too badly.
I do not know that there is a great deal more that I can say. I hope that I have shown that the North-East in general is not being neglected in the provision of trunk roads, which are the roads for which the Ministry is directly

responsible, and that Cleveland will benefit from all that is being done to integrate the North-East quickly and efficiently in the modernisation of the road transport system of the country. I hope that I have shown, too, that for local highway authority roads, and these are what my hon. Friend has been discussing, the North Riding has received a very fair share of the money available. As I have shown, a lot of this has been spent on improving internal roads, which are important to the industry and inhabitants of my hon. Friend's constituency.
My hon. Friend and his constituents may feel that a larger proportion of what we have been able to allocate to the North Riding should have gone to their area. But this is really a matter for the working of the local authority. None of the schemes that has come up to its for approval at the head of the list has seemed unworthy, and in deciding about the priorities of local routes within the scope of the funds that can be allotted, who is better qualified to judge than those who are locally elected? If they do not choose the right ones they get slung out.
In saying this, I do not want my hon. Friend to think that we are washing our hands of the matter. There is, inevitably, a good deal of co-operation between local highway authorities and the Ministry, and I am glad to say that our relations with the North Riding County particularly are of the very best.
In conclusion, I can assure my hon. Friend that what he has said tonight about conditions in his constituency will be most carefully borne in mind when we allot funds, and I hope that this assurance will make him feel that his efforts tonight in informing me about the state of roads in his constituency have been well worthwhile.

question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.